Stopping the takedown

[t_niehoff]

What do you do when the opponent gets your leg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlx3ay8dELQ

is the answer. Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G-occarX0w

[Dragonzbane76]

"even though he have my leg, i'm on top of him wide enough"?????
"It's a trade off, I hit him he has leg"
hum....I think that guy didn't have a clear answer as to what to do actually. Only thing the guy said that would be of benifit was don't let him get the leg. Funny thing about the single leg is that yeah you might take a hit, but the point is for positioning, get the guy to the ground and mount and pound/sub. etc. and honestly who the hell has time if the single or double is deep enough to hit someone with any amount of force, the momentum will push you back on your a$$ or topple you.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I'd stab him with one of the knives I always carry. All in fun, although I do usually carry at least one blade at all times, there is no assurance that I would be able to pull one out. ;)

[HumbleWCGuy]

What do you do when the opponent gets your leg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlx3ay8dELQ

is the answer. Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G-occarX0w

I have to say, that was not very good. If my instructor would have shown me some crap like that, I might have considered training elsewhere. To be honest, T, if you don't like what you see in these videos, you should form your own lineage. Somehow, I suspect that you don't think much of a lot of Robert's stuff either hence, all the mma.

[anerlich]

Perspective: this was 1999. I had only just begun studying grappling then ,and I doubt T had done any at all. Most KF guys didn't know sh*t about it.

I wouldn't go to Saulo Ribiero to learn how to punch and kick, I wouldn't go to William Cheung or Robert Chu to learn takedown defense, and I wouldn't take T's advice on anything to do with fighting.

I didn't watch with audio. Pushing the head away is a good tactic, though to the outside would be much better. I can't see being able to hit the guy very hard while he's cutting an angle and taking you down. Far better to get the leg away before he can grab (sprawl) or release the grip somehow.

I suspect a fairly inept attempt by T to wind up TWC people.

Nice takedown, gotta try that.

[t_niehoff]

I have to say, that was not very good. If my instructor would have shown me some crap like that, I might have considered training elsewhere. To be honest, T, if you don't like what you see in these videos, you should form your own lineage. Somehow, I suspect that you don't think much of a lot of Robert's stuff either hence, all the mma.

Why would I form my own lineage when all lineage is bullsh1t? WCK is like riding a bike or playing golf -- are their lineages? I don't need to form a lineage to teach someone to ride a bike.

I don't know what you mean by "Robert's stuff". I think very highly of Robert and am thankful that I trained with him. He helped me make my WCK functional. He has the core curriculum of WCK, and can teach it very well.

W/r/t "all the MMA"-- as I have said before, if you want to be a well-rounded fighter, you NEED stand up,clinch, and ground skills and you NEED good, skilled people in those areas to spar with. Hence MMA.

[goju]

everyone knows the way you stop a takedown is too halt the person before he shoots and give him a long winded diatribe about how they should train. make sure to pepper in terms like "theoretical non fighters" to show them you mean business too.:D:D:D:D:p:p:p

[t_niehoff]

Perspective: this was 1999. I had only just begun studying grappling then ,and I doubt T had done any at all. Most KF guys didn't know sh*t about it.


All true. And, included in the "most KF guys" is William Cheung.



I wouldn't go to Saulo Ribiero to learn how to punch and kick, I wouldn't go to William Cheung or Robert Chu to learn takedown defense, and I wouldn't take T's advice on anything to do with fighting.


I don't ask anyone to take my advice. Nor do I teach seminars about things I don't know anything about or take money from people to show them how to fail.



I didn't watch with audio. Pushing the head away is a good tactic, though to the outside would be much better. I can't see being able to hit the guy very hard while he's cutting an angle and taking you down. Far better to get the leg away before he can grab (sprawl) or release the grip somehow.

I suspect a fairly inept attempt by T to wind up TWC people.


I don't think Cheung is any worse -- and certainly not better -- than most of the other WCK "masters."

I put this up to make a simple point. As you readily admit, Cheung is teaching something he knows little about. Certainly this is nothing that really ever worked for him in fighting, and certainly not against anyone with a decent takedown. It is purely a theoretical "answer". The people who actually do takedowns, who actually train with good grapplers -- like you -- instantly recognize how silly this whole thing is. Should we listen to what good grapplers/MMAists have to say or should we just accept it as true because Cheung says so?

And why should we not hold Cheung, and other WCK teachers, to the same standard in stand-up? Much of what Cheung, and others, show in stand up is pure nonsense -- all you have to do is ask good stand-up fighters and they'll tell you that what Cheung does, like his ground defense, won't work. So, should we ignore the good, proven stand-up fighters or accept it as true because Cheung says so?

[goju]

well another solution would be that we could all get lives, girlfriends,hobbies and you know actually train instead of wasting years babbling on about whos not doing this or that right

but thats just thinking rationally:D:rolleyes:

[Knifefighter]

Perspective: this was 1999. I had only just begun studying grappling then ,and I doubt T had done any at all. Most KF guys didn't know sh*t about it.

I bet the guy asking the question did have had a some kind of grappling background. He did a nice step behind from the low single and followed it up with a smooth looking mount on the other. Most guys without grappling experience wouldn't throw on a mount like that. Interesting that he could have easily taken Cheung down from that position, but didn't. He probably asked for his money back after the seminar, though. ;)

Back then, all the kung fu guys thought their forms had grappling and groundfighting. Kind of showed how worthless forms are.


I didn't watch with audio. Pushing the head away is a good tactic, though to the outside would be much better.

Actually, from the low single, you have to push the head to the inside. Even with a high single, if the guy works it halfway decently, you have to counter with the head on the inside. If you can counter a single with the head on the outside, that pretty much means your opponent sucks.


I can't see being able to hit the guy very hard while he's cutting an angle and taking you down.

You can always tell the clueless guys. They think they can hit you on the back of the head and it will make some kind of difference. That's one way to know someone has never gone full contact with takedowns.


Far better to get the leg away before he can grab (sprawl) or release the grip somehow.

Lots of things you can do once the opponent takes the leg- ****zer, 1/4 nelson, D'arce, push and spin, leg outside, etc. There's a lot more than just sprawling.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Why would I form my own lineage when all lineage is bullsh1t? WCK is like riding a bike or playing golf -- are their lineages? I don't need to form a lineage to teach someone to ride a bike.

I don't know what you mean by "Robert's stuff". I think very highly of Robert and am thankful that I trained with him. He helped me make my WCK functional. He has the core curriculum of WCK, and can teach it very well.

W/r/t "all the MMA"-- as I have said before, if you want to be a well-rounded fighter, you NEED stand up,clinch, and ground skills and you NEED good, skilled people in those areas to spar with. Hence MMA.

Your purpose for posting here is that that you want to save WCers from embarrassing defeats at the hands of any man, woman, or Girl Scout who dares challenge them. A way to save us, would be to start up your own chain of schools, creating your own WC branch. Now I know that you say that you aren't that good, but you couldn't do any more harm to WC than the people who are currently popularizing it.

[anerlich]

I bet the guy asking the question did have had a some kind of grappling background. He did a nice step behind from the low single and followed it up with a smooth looking mount on the other. Most guys without grappling experience wouldn't throw on a mount like that.

I agree. That was quite a nice little move.


Interesting that he could have easily taken Cheung down from that position, but didn't. He probably asked for his money back after the seminar, though.

If he asked a KF guy how to stop takedowns, he probably would have been parted from his money soon enough.:p


Actually, from the low single, you have to push the head to the inside. Even with a high single, if the guy works it halfway decently, you have to counter with the head on the inside. If you can counter a single with the head on the outside, that pretty much means your opponent sucks.


You're right. I was visualising what I'd learned and got my in/out sides wrong.

[anerlich]

I don't ask anyone to take my advice.

Can I ask you not to give it?


I put this up to make a simple point.

A point you've made before, several million times. Change the friggin' record.

[anerlich]

but you couldn't do any more harm to WC than the people who are currently popularizing it.

I think you're selling T short here. The full depths of his mediocrity are still unplumbed.

[YungChun]

There are still Chun teachers out there that would never "demo" something that didn't work.. And also recognize that things rarely "just work", it's %.. But either they could/would do it themselves right then and there against live resisting folks (or do their best to) or they would keep their mouth shut... Not all "TMA"/Chun teachers are the same, have the same standards, etc..

Also, there are those folks and schools among TMA stylists that fight hard, compete hard, train realistically and do so pretty darn well..

Terence you'd do well to re-calculate those folks back into the non theoretical, non scrub designations... Sure most of this stuff is fantasy foo but not all, not everyone, and they count too.

In the end it's when folks become "Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers" of styles the problems start--they elevate themselves so high that they dare not ever fail. So actually working a defense could mean "failure" and everyone knows that "Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers" of styles never fail...

[Wayfaring]

Actually, from the low single, you have to push the head to the inside. Even with a high single, if the guy works it halfway decently, you have to counter with the head on the inside. If you can counter a single with the head on the outside, that pretty much means your opponent sucks.

Lots of things you can do once the opponent takes the leg- ****zer, 1/4 nelson, D'arce, push and spin, leg outside, etc. There's a lot more than just sprawling.

Megaton showed one about a month ago with pushing the head to the outside, sitting back on your butt and rolling over opponent into top side control.

[Knifefighter]

Megaton showed one about a month ago with pushing the head to the outside, sitting back on your butt and rolling over opponent into top side control.

You can only push the head to the outside if the opponent lands a crappy single.

[mjw]

Sprawl & cross face make sure you are on top of them is true but you want to get that leg out of there and make sure the grappler doesn't stand up with that leg or you are most likely going to go down.....

[Frost]

Megaton showed one about a month ago with pushing the head to the outside, sitting back on your butt and rolling over opponent into top side control.

getting the head to the outside on a good single is very hard, the head is buried deep to stop the crossface etc, some guys do shoot with the head on the outside and then there are all sorts of things you can do to them, but this is a crappy single too easy to crossface and take the back and even if they get you down they have no control of the leg or body the heads in the wrong spot

[goju]

against the average stooge trying to grab your legs at a bar i dont see the problem with this

i dont think cheung thinks it will work at the ADCC

[Frost]

against the average stooge trying to grab your legs at a bar i dont see the problem with this

i dont think cheung thinks it will work at the ADCC

the problem is he will probably drive right through you training or no training, but even if he doesn't why train something you know will only work against someone bad when you can learn something that will work against both a good and bad fighter?

[goju]

why train something you know will only work against someone bad when you can learn something that will work against both a good and bad fighter?


actually i agree with this completely but being that most people have no desire to compete (hell lets be honest most people just do martial arts to get some excercise not even for self defense) that move is simple enough to learn.

learning how to stuff takedowns as professional high level grapplers would do is not very easy to preform at all (actually its ****ing hard lol)

thats why you see more striking oriented mma figthers get taken down at will by guys with heaps more grappling experience than them. it takes alooooooong time to get it down pat

[goju]

actually this reminded me of something

while i was at t'sko we learned a gjj street self defense move for a bear hug from the front or a hay maker

you essentailly spread both arms out ala karate kid crane style and pin the inside of the attackers bend on the arm then you change levels and go for a takedown

now of course this has about zero chance of working against some who knows how to grapple

BUT one of the students who was there at the same time as i was worked at a bar and one of the customers got a bit rowdy and lunged at him when he asked him to leave

the student managed to preform the move on the guy took him flat on his back and that was the end of him

for the average person stuff like cheung demonstrated and the gjj self defense techniques are enough

[Frost]

actually i agree with this completely but being that most people have no desire to compete (hell lets be honest most people just do martial arts to get some excercise not even for self defense) that move is simple enough to learn.

learning how to stuff takedowns as professional high level grapplers would do is not very easy to preform at all (actually its ****ing hard lol)

thats why you see more striking oriented mma figthers get taken down at will by guys with heaps more grappling experience than them. it takes alooooooong time to get it down pat

how is that move more simple than sprawling and crossfacing, or learning to put the leg on the outside and stufing the head?

learning to sprawl, cross face, push the head wh*zzer etc is relatively easy, the reason those strikers get taken down is because the grapplers have more expereince than them, just as grapplers who learn striking get knocked out by strikers with more experience (you wouldn't advocate them learning to throw haymakers and lunge punches would you because the strikers are better than them when it comes to boxing and thai?)

[Niersun]

First and foremost if you practice WC then show some respect and address the man as Cheung Sifu at least.

Sure that punch in the back of the head seems theoretical, but it is still commonly used by a striker should they ever find them selves in such a position, assuming they didnt have enough time to land a kick to the head (which can still be picked). It doesnt stop the takedown, but on a low percentage, it can still knock someone out, if enough force can be applied.

GM teaches Traditonal Wing Chun. TWC is a striking art. Should you know a better technique, then good for you.

If you think your style of fighting is better then TWC techniques, then challenge one of GM top students and try your takedown.

If you love think Wing Chun is ****, why are you on the Wing Chun page??? Im sure there is a MMA page.

Last but not least, GM has nothing to prove to you guys. He teaches Wing Chun, not MMA and last time i looked, his actually trained military and law enforcement. Every school has a different way of doing things, some work better than others. The guy in the video probably does sambo, since GM teaches wing chun to sambo fighters. If he had any doubt, at least he showed respect.

I doubt half you guys have been stabbed and ****, had numerous street fights, started brawls with bikies. Well GM did and there are people in Australia that can testify. If you think your a better street fighter than he ever was in his prime, then your only deluding yourself.

[Dragonzbane76]

See that's the problem, someone with no background in grappling assumes they will have time for the strike and with good leverage. The thing about the clip is that in full motion the takedown is done with driving force the guy defending only has a brief window of opportunity to stop the takedown, and striking the guy in the head will not defend the takedown itself. Your going to end up on your back, the place the other guy wants you.

[Frost]

First and foremost if you practice WC then show some respect and address the man as Cheung Sifu at least.

Sure that punch in the back of the head seems theoretical, but it is still commonly used by a striker should they ever find them selves in such a position, assuming they didnt have enough time to land a kick to the head (which can still be picked). It doesnt stop the takedown, but on a low percentage, it can still knock someone out, if enough force can be applied.

GM teaches Traditonal Wing Chun. TWC is a striking art. Should you know a better technique, then good for you.

If you think your style of fighting is better then TWC techniques, then challenge one of GM top students and try your takedown.

If you love think Wing Chun is ****, why are you on the Wing Chun page??? Im sure there is a MMA page.

Last but not least, GM has nothing to prove to you guys. He teaches Wing Chun, not MMA and last time i looked, his actually trained military and law enforcement. Every school has a different way of doing things, some work better than others. The guy in the video probably does sambo, since GM teaches wing chun to sambo fighters. If he had any doubt, at least he showed respect.

I doubt half you guys have been stabbed and ****, had numerous street fights, started brawls with bikies. Well GM did and there are people in Australia that can testify. If you think your a better street fighter than he ever was in his prime, then your only deluding yourself.

Sorry for knocking your god, I for one was addressing the technique and not the man, a technique that you pointed out yourself is low percentage at best. And as I didn’t even mention him and don't know him why should I address him as sifu grandmaster or whatever, we were discussing technique not the man

Why do you take things so personal? this is half the problem with TCMA they take criticism personally rather than objectively.

Do I think the takedown defence sucked...yes...Do I know better defences...yes...why because I actually grapple. Do I need to go and challenge his top students in order to know that takedown defence s^cks, no anyone with a bit of common sense knows its low percentage (as you yourself pointed out)

[Frost]

See that's the problem, someone with no background in grappling assumes they will have time for the strike and with good leverage. The thing about the clip is that in full motion the takedown is done with driving force the guy defending only has a brief window of opportunity to stop the takedown, and striking the guy in the head will not defend the takedown itself. Your going to end up on your back, the place the other guy wants you.

look this is the wing chun forum please keep your sensible answers to yourself:)

[Niersun]

See that's the problem, someone with no background in grappling assumes they will have time for the strike and with good leverage. The thing about the clip is that in full motion the takedown is done with driving force the guy defending only has a brief window of opportunity to stop the takedown, and striking the guy in the head will not defend the takedown itself. Your going to end up on your back, the place the other guy wants you.

As i stated, the kick can still be picked. Leg Pick.

[t_niehoff]

actually i agree with this completely but being that most people have no desire to compete (hell lets be honest most people just do martial arts to get some excercise not even for self defense) that move is simple enough to learn.


Well, if people don't care whether or not they can make their martial art work, then they can do anything, right?

But, why practice a martial art -- a fighting method -- to not fight or learn to fight. If people just want exercise, why not just take up ballroom dance?

That move may be simple to learn but it simply won't stop anyone who in intent on taking you down. The "judo chop" won't do anything.



learning how to stuff takedowns as professional high level grapplers would do is not very easy to preform at all (actually its ****ing hard lol)


You are mixing up two things -- the first is what is fundamentally sound and the second is the level at which you can perform it. As Frost pointed out, fundamentally sound moves will work at all level while junk will -- if it works at all-- only work at very low levels. So, if you are going to bother to train, why not learn fundamentally sound stuff?

And you are wrong about stuffing the takedowns of high level grapplers. Yes, they will eventually take you down (just as a BJJ BB will eventually submit you when you roll). But with competent solid fundamentals, even a lower level grapplers can succeed for a time. MMA is a great example -- you've got Div.1 wrestlers having trouble taking down fighters who don't have any where near their grappling level because their solid fundamentals make it difficult.



thats why you see more striking oriented mma figthers get taken down at will by guys with heaps more grappling experience than them. it takes alooooooong time to get it down pat

It doesn't take that long --and no present-day UFC fighters are taken down at will (you don't get to that level without good wrestling).

You are -- like so many theoretical nonfighters -- trying to find "reasons" for not training (it is too difficult to learn, you won't be attacked by anyone with a good takedown, I don't really want to learn to fight after all, etc.).

[Niersun]

Sorry for knocking your god, I for one was addressing the technique and not the man, a technique that you pointed out yourself is low percentage at best. And as I didn’t even mention him and don't know him why should I address him as sifu grandmaster or whatever, we were discussing technique not the man

Why do you take things so personal? this is half the problem with TCMA they take criticism personally rather than objectively.

Do I think the takedown defence sucked...yes...Do I know better defences...yes...why because I actually grapple. Do I need to go and challenge his top students in order to know that takedown defence s^cks, no anyone with a bit of common sense knows its low percentage (as you yourself pointed out)

Addressing it to Terrence.

I treated the criticism as constructive, i.e low %, but i have a gut feeling that Terrence was taking a cheap shot and replied accordingly.

[t_niehoff]

There are still Chun teachers out there that would never "demo" something that didn't work..


Unless you are showing what you yourself do successfully in fighting, how can you know whether something works or not?



And also recognize that things rarely "just work", it's %..


Sure, but good solid fundamentals are by definition high percentage.

And,the converse isn't true-- there is lots of stuff that simply won't work (like what Cheung showed).



But either they could/would do it themselves right then and there against live resisting folks (or do their best to) or they would keep their mouth shut... Not all "TMA"/Chun teachers are the same, have the same standards, etc..


Perhaps.

My point is that if someone is trying to teach WCK "application" then they are either teaching things that they themselves consistently and successfully use in quality sparring or they are teaching crap.



Also, there are those folks and schools among TMA stylists that fight hard, compete hard, train realistically and do so pretty darn well..


The quality of you training not only depends on how "hard" and realistic it is but most importantly on the level of people you train (i.e., spar) with. There are lots of karate/kung fu kickboxing schools that compete with other karate/kung fu kickboxing schools in "full contact" type tournaments where everyone sucks.



Terence you'd do well to re-calculate those folks back into the non theoretical, non scrub designations... Sure most of this stuff is fantasy foo but not all, not everyone, and they count too.


I know that there are some,a very few, TCMA groups that do train well, that cross train, etc. But there are many,many more who are listening to people who are clueless tell them how to apply their WCK.



In the end it's when folks become "Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers" of styles the problems start--they elevate themselves so high that they dare not ever fail. So actually working a defense could mean "failure" and everyone knows that "Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers" of styles never fail...

I don't think one needs to reach "grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler" level to encounter this problem -- ANYONE who teaches WCK will run into it. How do you teach application? Do you teach it? My point is how can you teach what you aren't successfully already doing?

[bennyvt]

so your saying that gsp doesn't take people down at will? Moves that will work no matter what level of your opponent. Sounds like a theoretical non fighters ideas. Oh and i think several people have tried to challenge the gm as you call him, they were denied. Why would his students be different.

[t_niehoff]

First and foremost if you practice WC then show some respect and address the man as Cheung Sifu at least.


Why?



Sure that punch in the back of the head seems theoretical, but it is still commonly used by a striker should they ever find them selves in such a position, assuming they didnt have enough time to land a kick to the head (which can still be picked). It doesnt stop the takedown, but on a low percentage, it can still knock someone out, if enough force can be applied.


No, it can't and it won't work. You are theorizing that it will -- and this is what you guys do, make believe that your GM really "knows" when he doesn't.



GM teaches Traditonal Wing Chun. TWC is a striking art. Should you know a better technique, then good for you.


TWC is Cheung's modified curriculum of WCK. So what?



If you think your style of fighting is better then TWC techniques, then challenge one of GM top students and try your takedown.


What? and be karate chopped! LOL!



If you love think Wing Chun is ****, why are you on the Wing Chun page??? Im sure there is a MMA page.


My post wasn't directed at WCK, it was directed at one of the big problems in WCK: people who don't know what they are doing teaching others how to fail.



Last but not least, GM has nothing to prove to you guys.


That's good since he couldn't prove anything!



He teaches Wing Chun, not MMA and last time i looked, his actually trained military and law enforcement. Every school has a different way of doing things, some work better than others. The guy in the video probably does sambo, since GM teaches wing chun to sambo fighters. If he had any doubt, at least he showed respect.


So he teaches people how not to do WCK well -- is that what you are saying?



I doubt half you guys have been stabbed and ****, had numerous street fights, started brawls with bikies. Well GM did and there are people in Australia that can testify. If you think your a better street fighter than he ever was in his prime, then your only deluding yourself.

Let me see, he can get some of his followers to "corroborate" some of his stories. OK. Great.

This was Cheung's level in his prime:

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

and in Hong Kong, it was more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4

You accept what Cheung teaches because of his (false) rep -- do you not see why this is a huge problem?

[Frost]

so your saying that gsp doesn't take people down at will? Moves that will work no matter what level of your opponent. Sounds like a theoretical non fighters ideas. Oh and i think several people have tried to challenge the gm as you call him, they were denied. Why would his students be different.

GSP is a freak lol but actually he can be used to back T argument, he had nowhere near the wrestling experience of Hughes but shrugged off his takedowns due to good fundamentals (and that athletic ability he has)

and T is for the most part right good D1 wrestlers koschek, etc have had problems with guys who have nowhere near the grappling ability but have drilled the fundamental escapes, just as decorated BJJ blackbelts have had trouble with guys who are purple or brown belts and who have enough skill in the fundamentals to defend sub attempts.

[Frost]

Why?


This was Cheung's level in his prime:

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

and in Hong Kong, it was more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4

You accept what Cheung teaches because of his (false) rep -- do you not see why this is a huge problem?

come on everyone knows it was the shoes he was wearing that made him fall over :) no one in any of those clips comes out with any real respect and face left intact

[Wayfaring]

You can only push the head to the outside if the opponent lands a crappy single.

Agreed. Pushing the head to the inside, framing against it, and a wh1zzer are actually my staples against a better one. Or of course the sprawl. Depends on the entry angle.

[kung fu fighter]

is the answer. Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G-occarX0w

LOL, I can't believe what I am seeing in this day and age, judo chop!
i thought the student doing the takedown had a good point, It would have been nice to see how Mr Cheung's move would have worked in real time, when the wrestler adapted by countering right away until the takedown was accomplished. This is why dynamic resistant training is important.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How do you take some one down with a single leg?
That is the first question you ask BEFORE you contemplate hwo to COUNTER the take down.
If YOU were gonna take some one down with a single leg, how would you do it so as to NOT get beat?
Think about this.
You would not go from too far out, you would get in close, you would set up the low angle by attacking the high angle or doing it as a counter, you would drive in and lock the opponents leg while the momentum of your WHOLE BODY would disruot their structure, you woudl then either "sweep" the leg, or "lift" the leg or drive through through the leg or a combination of all 3, all that done so fast that the person woudl be down before they were ablt to hit or counter.
THAT is what you woudl do ( typically) and that is what you would have to counter to stop the take down.
There is NO pause, no giving the opponent a chance, there is no chance for him to "get stable", there is no "I am gonna take you down" warning.
There is only, for the takedowner, the intent to take down and for the defender, the knowledge of a takedown in progress when it is happening, when contact is made, when the signs are read.
You get none of that from that clip.

[t_niehoff]

so your saying that gsp doesn't take people down at will?


Frost has covered this well already.



Moves that will work no matter what level of your opponent.


I know you're one of those guys who aren't very bright, but try to follow me, OK?

I've already explained that there are two parts, the move and your ability (level) to perform it. Good solid fundamentals are typically easy to perform and work a high percentage of the time (this is why they are fundamentals). They are the moves/techniques that have proven themselves (in all levels of competition, in the street, etc.) to consistently work well, to be fundamentally sound. And there is a lot of nonsense that simply won't hold up. For example, if you want to escape the mount, the bridge (upa), the elbow escape, etc. are solid, proven fundamentals. If you are going to escape against a decent grappler, you're going to NEED to use those fundamentals, other sh1t simply won't work. It's the same with preventing takedowns.



Sounds like a theoretical non fighters ideas.


I think that if you actually train with some fighters you'll see that what I am saying is pretty much the standard POV. If you trained with fighters, you'd see what I'm talking about in action. It's not theory, but in actual practice -- you'd see it for yourself. Which only underscores what I am saying -- when people, whether you or Cheung -- speculate rather than draw on actual quality experience, you end up with nonsense.

[m1k3]

Addressing it to Terrence.

I treated the criticism as constructive, i.e low %, but i have a gut feeling that Terrence was taking a cheap shot and replied accordingly.

I don't consider it a cheap shot. If you post nonsense you should get called for it. If GSP posted that garbage he should be called on it also.

[TenTigers]

Hello,

I'd stab him with one of the knives I always carry. All in fun, although I do usually carry at least one blade at all times, there is no assurance that I would be able to pull one out. ;)
The Police weren't very enthusiastic about my carrying three knives on me.
"Why do you need three?"
"You carry a back-up piece, right?"
"yeah, well, I'm a cop!"
"Yeah, well I'm NOT!"
"Put your hands against the car, please..."

[TenTigers]

The Police weren't very enthusiastic about my carrying three knives on me.
"Why do you need three?"
"You carry a back-up piece, right?"
"yeah, well, I'm a cop!"
"Yeah, well I'm NOT!"
"Put your hands against the car, please..."

(I chose not to say,"So wherever my hand might be, I can deploy my weapon..")

[YungChun]

The Police weren't very enthusiastic about my carrying three knives on me.
"Why do you need three?"
"You carry a back-up piece, right?"
"yeah, well, I'm a cop!"
"Yeah, well I'm NOT!"
"Put your hands against the car, please..."


Bad idea from a legal standpoint..

Never tell them you have the blades for anticipated use in self defense.. Tell them you need the knives for safety at work.. You work with machinery and you need more than one blade so in case your hand/sleeve gets caught in the machine you can reach any blade with the free hand to cut yourself loose, etc....

[t_niehoff]

Bad idea from a legal standpoint..

Never tell them you have the blades for anticipated use in self defense.. Tell them you need the knives for safety at work.. You work with machinery and you need more than one blade so in case your hand/sleeve gets caught in the machine you can reach any blade with the free hand to cut yourself loose, etc....

Carrying blades at all is very bad from a legal standpoint.

And, it's not healthy.

[SoCo KungFu]

Actually, from the low single, you have to push the head to the inside. Even with a high single, if the guy works it halfway decently, you have to counter with the head on the inside. If you can counter a single with the head on the outside, that pretty much means your opponent sucks.

This

Drive their head down as far as you can take it. From there you can ****zer their outside arm, get your leg out and THEN you can use your free hand to strike their face. Your top position now gives you the advantage of leverage. Or you can take back. Or if you're especially fanciful in your grappling you can pull a peruvian, d'arce, amongst other things. Lots you can do, after you have safely nullified their control.

[goju]

Well, if people don't care whether or not they can make their martial art work, then they can do anything, right?

But, why practice a martial art -- a fighting method -- to not fight or learn to fight. If people just want exercise, why not just take up ballroom dance?

because stating you take martial arts will perk more ears around the water cooler. in other words youc an brag more about it than ball room dancing.



You are mixing up two things -- the first is what is fundamentally sound and the second is the level at which you can perform it. As Frost pointed out, fundamentally sound moves will work at all level while junk will -- if it works at all-- only work at very low levels. So, if you are going to bother to train, why not learn fundamentally sound stuff?

And you are wrong about stuffing the takedowns of high level grapplers. Yes, they will eventually take you down (just as a BJJ BB will eventually submit you when you roll). But with competent solid fundamentals, even a lower level grapplers can succeed for a time. MMA is a great example -- you've got Div.1 wrestlers having trouble taking down fighters who don't have any where near their grappling level because their solid fundamentals make it difficult.



It doesn't take that long --and no present-day UFC fighters are taken down at will (you don't get to that level without good wrestling).

You are -- like so many theoretical nonfighters -- trying to find "reasons" for not training (it is too difficult to learn, you won't be attacked by anyone with a good takedown, I don't really want to learn to fight after all, etc.).


wooah woooah wooah sally lets pull the rains out on here and be realistic

YOURE 50 years old and your experience at best is questionable in your own art much less others

again i think your need to pull your head out of the clouds a bit before you type

you really shouldnt be telling a gentleman in their prime about training or fighting when you skipped out of sparring wing chun guys on here how many times?

call me crazy but i dont really want pointers from an old timer who isnt that good and ducks sparring matches left and right :rolleyes::D

especially since so many here and else where dont do the "real wing chun" like you id think it would be easy pickings to to meet them .:D

but thats just me using logic again:D

[goju]

come on everyone knows it was the shoes he was wearing that made him fall over :) no one in any of those clips comes out with any real respect and face left intact

oh come on dont bring that petty **** in again bro

this forum all ready has enough catty teenage girl bickering going on
:rolleyes:

[Sardinkahnikov]

YOURE 50 years old

LOL c'mon man, do you really have to bring that up? You're going to end up flaming the guy into depression.:rolleyes:

[goju]

LOL c'mon man, do you really have to bring that up? You're going to end up flaming the guy into depression.:rolleyes:

i like to think of myself as the cold back hand of reality :D

[t_niehoff]

because stating you take martial arts will perk more ears around the water cooler. in other words youc an brag more about it than ball room dancing.


If that's what makes you happy.



wooah woooah wooah sally lets pull the rains out on here and be realistic

YOURE 50 years old and your experience at best is questionable in your own art much less others


Dude, you have no idea about my experience or anything about me. I understand that in your little world you just make up what you want to believe and call it "true", but I don't live in your little fantasy world.



again i think your need to pull your head out of the clouds a bit before you type

you really shouldnt be telling a gentleman in their prime about training or fighting when you skipped out of sparring wing chun guys on here how many times?


There you go making stuff up again.



call me crazy but i dont really want pointers from an old timer who isnt that good and ducks sparring matches left and right :rolleyes::D


You can keep saying it but that doesn't make it any more true.

I am sorry that you can't offer anything of substance, and the only way for you to try and save face after showing that you don't ahve any clue as to dealing with takedowns is to resort to ad hominem lies.



especially since so many here and else where dont do the "real wing chun" like you id think it would be easy pickings to to meet them .:D

but thats just me using logic again:D

No, it's just you lying again to try and cover the fact that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You and Victor have a lot in common. :)

There is no such thing as "real" WCK -- there are just people who train like fighters and people who don't. Oops, sorry, I forgot, and people like you.

[t_niehoff]

i like to think of myself as the cold back hand of reality :D

Interesting. That's a lovely fantasy.

[shawchemical]

Frost has covered this well already.



I know you're one of those guys who aren't very bright, but try to follow me, OK?

I've already explained that there are two parts, the move and your ability (level) to perform it. Good solid fundamentals are typically easy to perform and work a high percentage of the time (this is why they are fundamentals). They are the moves/techniques that have proven themselves (in all levels of competition, in the street, etc.) to consistently work well, to be fundamentally sound. And there is a lot of nonsense that simply won't hold up. For example, if you want to escape the mount, the bridge (upa), the elbow escape, etc. are solid, proven fundamentals. If you are going to escape against a decent grappler, you're going to NEED to use those fundamentals, other sh1t simply won't work. It's the same with preventing takedowns.



I think that if you actually train with some fighters you'll see that what I am saying is pretty much the standard POV. If you trained with fighters, you'd see what I'm talking about in action. It's not theory, but in actual practice -- you'd see it for yourself. Which only underscores what I am saying -- when people, whether you or Cheung -- speculate rather than draw on actual quality experience, you end up with nonsense.

Lol, It;s pretty clear you're flailing around with your arguments. Benny's point is 100% valid. Your argument that there are moves which will work 100% of the time is bull****, and reeks of what you accuse every other man of, theoretical fighting.

There are techniques which will work better against smaller people, and ones that work better against larger people, but there are none that work 100% of the time against all people. That is just utter nonsense.

It's pretty funny, but Benny wasn't defending cheung, but pointing out YOUR hipocrisy.

[goju]

If that's what makes you happy.

And where did i say anywhere that my statement applied to me? For someone who tells people to get their GED you sure struggle with basic reading comphrehension.


Dude, you have no idea about my experience or anything about me. I understand that in your little world you just make up what you want to believe and call it "true", but I don't live in your little fantasy world.


Well for starters, i know you're over the hill and not very good and with your age that means what little skill you had in your youth( if you were even training at the time) has deteriorated greatly leaving you with almost nothing.



There you go making stuff up again.

It's called being a smart @ss. If you wouldn't leave your self open to it with your numerous contradictions i wouldnt be able to do it.


You can keep saying it but that doesn't make it any more true.

I am sorry that you can't offer anything of substance, and the only way for you to try and save face after showing that you don't ahve any clue as to dealing with takedowns is to resort to ad hominem lies.

Oh dont get me wrong i wouldn't dismiss all folks your age. If i was going to bother with a geezer id just prefer one that has decades of quality of training other his belt. you know something you lack.

As far as the takedown goes i never said i would use what cheung demoed. Being that im not a twc student there would be no reason for me to. See what i was telling you about reading comphrehension? XD




There is no such thing as "real" WCK -- there are just people who train like fighters and people who don't. Oops, sorry, I forgot, and people like you.

I think someone is just touchy because of what i said to him last time. Hey its not my fault little buddy. As i told you before you continually set yourself up for it :D

[bennyvt]

"fundamentally sound moves will work at all level while junk will -- if it works at all-- only work at very low levels"- No they have a better chance of working. You tend to pick on people for not being exactly right, thought you should be held to that to. I mainly couldn't miss the chance for the theoretical non-fighter. Which you would be, you don't fight do you? you don't compete in any fighting type sport. By your admisson you just listen to fighters, so you are a theoretical non fighter that trains with real fighters. Just using your terms man, sorry.
GSP while not having the background of hughes, I think many would argue that his skill level in wrestling is as high if not higher then hughes (don't get me wrong, I've liked him since the first ufc's). So when two people of equal or one greater skill those fundamentals must be better then their opponent its not just a matter of if you do a ****zer (?) then you can stop GSP. I do understand the idea of high and low% I just thought Id get to T and its seems to have worked.

[goju]

of course he isnt a fighter thats what is amusing about him

he doesnt see the irony in a person whos never fought calling other people out for not fighting

but he reasons by riding the jock of any competitor he can this come how makes him look "legit'


excuse me i have to go laugh for a bit:D

[Frost]

oh come on dont bring that petty **** in again bro

this forum all ready has enough catty teenage girl bickering going on
:rolleyes:

was that not the excuse given for his loss.....and are you telling me you thought those matches...either of them was good?

[goju]

was that not the excuse given for his loss.....and are you telling me you thought those matches...either of them was good?

yeaaaaaaaah that was two men falling on their arses and then it magically goes black and you cant see whats going on then it abrupty cuts out as quickly as it cuts in

that wasnt a win or loss for either and i dont see why a few seconds of blacked out film sparks more debate than pattersons big foot video lol :rolleyes::D

[t_niehoff]

"fundamentally sound moves will work at all level while junk will -- if it works at all-- only work at very low levels"- No they have a better chance of working.


I realize that you and goju, etc. have IQs in the low 80s, but try to understand this -- take some time to do what you generally don't: think.

I am not saying that a fundamental move will work every single time. Nothing works every single time. I am saying that by looking at what things consistently and successfully (high percentage) work in quality fighting, we can ID those things that are fundamentally sound. They are working at that level because they are fundamentally sound (you can't make crap work consistently against high level people).



You tend to pick on people for not being exactly right, thought you should be held to that to. I mainly couldn't miss the chance for the theoretical non-fighter. Which you would be, you don't fight do you? you don't compete in any fighting type sport. By your admisson you just listen to fighters, so you are a theoretical non fighter that trains with real fighters.


If you train with real fighters, then you are sparring with real fighters (that's what training with real fighters involves). Go join a MMA gym and train, then come back and tell me you're not fighting. ;)



Just using your terms man, sorry.


Just not using them correctly man, sorry.



GSP while not having the background of hughes, I think many would argue that his skill level in wrestling is as high if not higher then hughes (don't get me wrong, I've liked him since the first ufc's). So when two people of equal or one greater skill those fundamentals must be better then their opponent its not just a matter of if you do a ****zer (?) then you can stop GSP. I do understand the idea of high and low% I just thought Id get to T and its seems to have worked.

You haven't "got to me" and you don't understand anything.

No one is talking about just learning some move and you can deal with anything -- as I said, its both fundamentals and how well you can perform them (which involves many things). But, if you don't have the fundamentals, you can't perform them at all.

But how can we know what is or is not fundamentally sound? Only by looking to fighting, and by looking at what works regularly and consistently at higher levels -- since they weed out the crap. You can't know from forms, from unrealistic drills, from "concepts", etc.

But you won't understand any of this because you are not doing it.

[bennyvt]

you can further explain what you meant but thats not what you said. Aren't you a lawyer. I may have not good to law school like a certain spoilt little rich kid that now tries to tell his lawyer buddies that her hard cause he does mma, but atleast i understand that most people on here are trying to do what you keep crapping on about which is to train with the best guys they can in as many different styles as you can. Yeh ok we still have some eye gouge them types but most would agree that sparing with the best is the best way to get better. Sparing is sparing,

[t_niehoff]

you can further explain what you meant but thats not what you said.


It's exactly what I said. You're just too stupid to understand.

Look, a wh1zzer is a fundamentally sound way to deal wtih a single leg. How do we know? Because you can look at all levels of grappling/fighting as see it working consistently, even at the highest levels. Cheung's judo chop is pure crap. Why? Because it won't work at any level. So, if you want to learn fundamentally sound ways of dealing with a single leg, how can you know what they are? By the fact that you can see them consistently (not just once in a blue moon) working in fighting against good people. I've said this many times.



Aren't you a lawyer. I may have not good to law school like a certain spoilt little rich kid that now tries to tell his lawyer buddies that her hard cause he does mma,


Dude, I come from a working class background (my father often worked 3 jobs just to keep us eating), I'm the only one in my entire extended family to ever go to college, I worked my way through school, with the help of some scholarships, so once again you don't know what you are talking about. And I don't tell my "lawyer friends" anything about MMA or WCK -- most people I know don't know I train martial arts.

Like my education, I've earned everything though my own hard work.



but atleast i understand that most people on here are trying to do what you keep crapping on about which is to train with the best guys they can in as many different styles as you can.


Oh, really? Most people "on here" are trying to do that? Who? Again, you're making things up. Most people aren't. They not going and training with good fighters.



Yeh ok we still have some eye gouge them types but most would agree that sparing with the best is the best way to get better. Sparing is sparing,

That's only half of it. Yes, you need to spar, but it is the quality of the sparring that is critical. And by quality, I mean both in terms of intensity and the level of opponents. You can spar and spar against scrubs and you will make little progress.

[monji112000]

It's exactly what I said. You're just too stupid to understand.

Look, a wh1zzer is a fundamentally sound way to deal wtih a single leg. How do we know? Because you can look at all levels of grappling/fighting as see it working consistently, even at the highest levels. Cheung's judo chop is pure crap. Why? Because it won't work at any level. So, if you want to learn fundamentally sound ways of dealing with a single leg, how can you know what they are? By the fact that you can see them consistently (not just once in a blue moon) working in fighting against good people. I've said this many times.

You can only gain so much by watching. I see stuff all the time that top level guys do that I have not even come close to getting right... Doing is the only way, failing at whatever picking yourself up and figuring out what went wrong.. then doing again.. ect.. nobody else can teach you as much as you can teach yourself.

A wizzer is all well and good but like a sprawl it works for a set parameters and gets a specific result.

It doesn't matter what you do, if they guy is a high level wrestler or Judoka your in some ****.

When i train or compete against people that are wrestlers, I adopt a tactic of being more defensive and look to playing to my strengths.. ie maybe guard. I use and like the wizzer pressure and using your weight, sprawl ect.. I even use a neck tie that is very similar to a fook sao with the wizzer to help keep control. Its are relative because depending on how good he got you, were his head is , ect..

a good wrestling will just keep adapting no matter what you try.. so you have to try things they have not seen.. a good wrestler with some BJJ experience.. :D good luck.

My best defense has been underhooks, pressure, and always looking to get a throw. thats my experience, not watching.. I have trained with some quality wrestlers.. dev-1 michigan state , top level judoka. The fact remains these guys will take you down, throw you, pin you,.. its just a matter of time.

the problem is that we tend to do more watching, more talking and less doing. You have to find someone who has experience, and technique.. and just train.

[t_niehoff]

You can only gain so much by watching. I see stuff all the time that top level guys do that I have not even come close to getting right... Doing is the only way, failing at whatever picking yourself up and figuring out what went wrong.. then doing again.. ect.. nobody else can teach you as much as you can teach yourself.


You're talking about something else here. Look, I agree that the only way to develop a skill is by and through practicing that skill. And, that very good people can do things we can't. But, how can I know if that skill is fundamentally sound or not? From evidence, not theory. What evidence? That it is something that works consistently against good people.



A wizzer is all well and good but like a sprawl it works for a set parameters and gets a specific result.


Go train with some good wrestlers and then talk to me about how to defend the single leg.



It doesn't matter what you do, if they guy is a high level wrestler or Judoka your in some ****.


It DOES matter what you do. If you are doing fundamentally sound things you have a much better chance than if you aren't.



When i train or compete against people that are wrestlers, I adopt a tactic of being more defensive and look to playing to my strengths.. ie maybe guard. I use and like the wizzer pressure and using your weight, sprawl ect.. I even use a neck tie that is very similar to a fook sao with the wizzer to help keep control. Its are relative because depending on how good he got you, were his head is , ect..

a good wrestling will just keep adapting no matter what you try.. so you have to try things they have not seen.. a good wrestler with some BJJ experience.. :D good luck.


Any fighter will keep adapting to whatever you do -- that is the nature of fighting, you continually adapt to try and overcome your opponent's resistance. A wh1zzer is just a tool, a skill to use in that adaptation.



My best defense has been underhooks, pressure, and always looking to get a throw. thats my experience, not watching.. I have trained with some quality wrestlers.. dev-1 michigan state , top level judoka. The fact remains these guys will take you down, throw you, pin you,.. its just a matter of time.


And guess what? Good boxers will eventually hit you. And good MT fighters will kick you. This is fighting.

If they are better than you they will beat you. If someone is better at a particular part of the game, you need the skills to survive and get back into your game.



the problem is that we tend to do more watching, more talking and less doing. You have to find someone who has experience, and technique.. and just train.

Yup, you gotta do it and with people better than yourself.

[monji112000]

You're talking about something else here. Look, I agree that the only way to develop a skill is by and through practicing that skill. And, that very good people can do things we can't. But, how can I know if that skill is fundamentally sound or not? From evidence, not theory. What evidence? That it is something that works consistently against good people.



Go train with some good wrestlers and then talk to me about how to defend the single leg.



It DOES matter what you do. If you are doing fundamentally sound things you have a much better chance than if you aren't.



Any fighter will keep adapting to whatever you do -- that is the nature of fighting, you continually adapt to try and overcome your opponent's resistance. A wh1zzer is just a tool, a skill to use in that adaptation.



And guess what? Good boxers will eventually hit you. And good MT fighters will kick you. This is fighting.

If they are better than you they will beat you. If someone is better at a particular part of the game, you need the skills to survive and get back into your game.



Yup, you gotta do it and with people better than yourself.

The only way to know you are doing something that "is sound", is by personally coming to that conclusion, that being said its all relative. You can watch anyone do something, and you have no idea how, or why that worked or didn't. You can find people doing just about anything in high level competition, doesn't mean I can replicate it. the question then is why can't I? or can I? you have to be able to figure that out or have someone you trust who is capable to help you. Trust meaning you believe they are skilled, and have experience enough to merit knowing what they are talking about... that's a big chance your taking..

I have and do train with "good" wrestlers, and I do train with Judokas. As I said a good wrestler is going to constantly adapt to whatever "defense" you throw at them. I have few little things I do, I try to talk to people after to get an idea what they think i did right or wrong. Being better than someone is relative. You can be the best at one aspect and have some put you outside your comfort level in another area.. depending on your skill level and experience that can be more or less of a factor.

you logical flaw is that because I see you can do X in competition means its "fundamentally sound" . a watched someone get knocked out by a Jab the other day, does that mean suddenly I will knock people out with what I think a jab is? no because I assume my understanding, and skill is equal to that persons. I must acquire that level of skill and test that technique to the point that I have something that works for what I want it to. IE I must go through trial and error not you, not a world class athlete, not my teacher, ME. I can have help, and have someone give me pointers.. but I must do it. saying Wizzer, sprawling or even watching someone do it in competition does very little if nothing. Thats why most people (including myself) are not world class athletes. If it was that easy everyone would be able to stop every single, double, ect.. the fact is if the guy is a competent wrestler you in trouble, you may be able to find ways to get what you want.. but with a high skilled athlete or world class athlete your in trouble.


I'm never going to out box a boxer, unless I become a boxer. I will never out wrestle a wrestler unless I train, and become a wrestler (of that skill level).. You can't become everything, and you can't become a expert in everything.

Anyone would know this if they actually tried to wrestle someone with skill. its not secret wu tang knowledge.

I train with a guy who counters things by just knowing. Thats literally what he tells me, you feel it in your soul what they are going to do, and they you just adapt. I watch him do it.. guess what? its not happening yet for me. :D I watch people do allot of things and even have them show me what they did.. and have them do it to me in randori.. sometimes the level of athleticism required is just too high or coordination is too high.. I need to find MY way of doing it or find another technique. :o

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm never going to out box a boxer, unless I become a boxer. I will never out wrestle a wrestler unless I train, and become a wrestler (of that skill level).. You can't become everything, and you can't become a expert in everything.

Quite correct and this is loss on many people that not only cross train but that critique cross training.
See, you don't cross train to become anything, you do it to expose yourself to the REALITY of THAT MA.
You wanna know how to use your WC VS a wrestler?
Lear to wrestle and then you will see the gabs needed t be exploited and then you can see what in your WC arsenal can exploit them and how they need to be modified.
You don't become a wrestler but you learn to understand them and you "know the enemy".
You don't need years of training in a given system to to that either, you really don't.

[t_niehoff]

The only way to know you are doing something that "is sound", is by personally coming to that conclusion, that being said its all relative. You can watch anyone do something, and you have no idea how, or why that worked or didn't. You can find people do just about anything in high competition, doesn't mean I can replicate it. the question then is why can't I? or can I? you have to be able to figure that out or have someone you trust who is capable to help you. Trust meaning you believe they are skilled, and have experience enough to merit knowing what they are talking about... that's a big chance..


No, no, no. You're missing the point. Of course high level guys can do things we can't -- but you are confusing performance ability with the skill itself.

Just because you can do something or make something work against a scrub or someone less skilled than yourself doesn't make it fundamentally sound. What makes something fundamentally sound is that it will work not only against scrubs but at all levels. For example, we know that the sprawl is a fundamentally sound move/way to deal with a shoot because it works at every level, from beginner to world-class.



II have and do train with "good" wrestlers, and I do train with Judokas. As I said a good wrestler is going to constantly adapt to whatever "defense" you throw at them. I have little things I do, I try to talk to people after to get an idea what they think i did right or wrong. Being better than someone is relative. You can be the best at one aspect and have some put you outside your comfort level in another area.. depending on your skill level and experience that can be more or less of a factor.


All fighters adapt -- that is the game. Yes, being better is relative (they may be better than me but worse than someone else). We get better by training with people better than ourselves.



you logical flaw is that because I see you can do X in competition means its "fundamentally sound" .


That's not what I said. Something is fundamentally sound if you see it work consistently among high skill-level fighters (boxers, wrestlers, etc.). How else can you know?



a watched someone get knocked out by a Jab the other day, does that mean suddenly I will knock people out with what I think a jab is? no because I assume my understanding, and skill is equal to that persons. I must acquire that level of skill and test that technique to the point that I have something that works for what I want it to. IE I must go through trial and error not you, not a world class athlete, not my teacher, ME. I can have help, and have someone give me pointers.. but I must do it.


The jab is a fundamentally sound move -- you can see it used consistently and successfully among high level fighters.

Just because something is fundamentally sound doesn't mean it will work by itself -- like any skill, you need to put in the work to develop it, and it will only be as good as you make it. But the point is that you are starting with something (the jab) that has proved itself to be fundamentally sound.

If, however, you started with something that wasn't fundamentally sound, you would never develop any significant skill no matter how much practice you put in.



saying Wizzer, sprawling or even watching someone do it in competition does very little if nothing. Thats why most people (including myself) are not world class athletes. If it was that easy everyone would be able to stop every single, double, ect.. the fact is if the guy is a competent wrestler you in trouble, you may be able to find ways to get what you want.. but in high world your in trouble.
I'm never going to out box a boxer, unless I become a boxer. I will never out wrestle a wrestler unless I train, and become a wrestler (of that skill level).. You be everything, and you can't become a expert in everything.


You are using an argument that all theoretical nonfighters use (why learn groundfighting? if my opponent is a good groundfighter and gets me to the ground I can't beat him there, so why waste my time learning groundfighting?). But instead of trying to speculate, look at the evidence of what really happens -- lots of fighters routinely hit the ground with better groundfighters yet survive, lots of fighters mix it up in stand up with better strikers and survive. etc. The point is you don't need to beat him at his strength, you just need to have enough skill at his strength to survive and take the game to your strength.

I trained with boxers. I know that I'm not going to outbox them. But I learned enough to survive if I get caught on the outside -- I have trained to keep my guard up, chin down, move my head, circle, etc. until I can get out of range or clinch. I'm not going to try to outbox them. Now, if you haven't trained, you won't keep your guard up, chin down, move your head, circle, etc. -- you'll just get hammered.



Anyone would know this if they actually tried to wrestle someone with skill. its not secret wu tang knowledge.

I train with a guy who counters things by just knowing. Thats literally what he tells me, you feel it in your soul what they are going to do, and they you just adapt. I watch him do it.. guess what? its not happening yet for me. :D I watch people do allot of things and even have them show me what they did.. and have them do it to me in randori.. sometimes the level of athleticism required is just too high or coordination is too high.. I need to find MY way of doing it or find another technique. :o

Go train with some good fighters and fight trainers that can teach you what to do.

[goju]

which specific fighters are your training partners t? i want to know

[shawchemical]

It's exactly what I said. You're just too stupid to understand.

Look, a wh1zzer is a fundamentally sound way to deal wtih a single leg. How do we know? Because you can look at all levels of grappling/fighting as see it working consistently, even at the highest levels. Cheung's judo chop is pure crap. Why? Because it won't work at any level. So, if you want to learn fundamentally sound ways of dealing with a single leg, how can you know what they are? By the fact that you can see them consistently (not just once in a blue moon) working in fighting against good people. I've said this many times.



Dude, I come from a working class background (my father often worked 3 jobs just to keep us eating), I'm the only one in my entire extended family to ever go to college, I worked my way through school, with the help of some scholarships, so once again you don't know what you are talking about. And I don't tell my "lawyer friends" anything about MMA or WCK -- most people I know don't know I train martial arts.

Like my education, I've earned everything though my own hard work.



Oh, really? Most people "on here" are trying to do that? Who? Again, you're making things up. Most people aren't. They not going and training with good fighters.



That's only half of it. Yes, you need to spar, but it is the quality of the sparring that is critical. And by quality, I mean both in terms of intensity and the level of opponents. You can spar and spar against scrubs and you will make little progress.

You've earned an inability to fight and a big fkn mouth through hard work, that much is pretty clear.

You can try to wriggle out of it, but the I'm smarter than you bull**** just makes you look the fool.

You got pinged, and rightfully so for saying stupid things. There is no ad hominem way out of it now.

To use your own sword against you, you've got no idea what a fundamentally sound technique is, because apparently any talk of something which is fundamentally sound involves theory, thus anyone striving for fundamentally sound (read theoretically justified technique) is a theoretical non-fighter.

Zing.

You're a moron if you think that:
1. your local McMMA gym is not interested in making money as a first priority.
2. that someone without any training whatsoever will not be able to fight with you and your "uber MMA skills". I've seen far too many competitive fighters smashed senseless by big, mean and malicious guys with NO formal training in bar fights it's no longer funny.
3. that MMA is something other than a ruleset to compete under. It is NOT a combat system of its own. There is just as much bull**** around under that name as any other.

[bennyvt]

ok sorry. Your dad should have more respect then i gave. Made a bad generalization.

[YungChun]

What's the point of all this BS?

That cross training isn't needed..?

That realistic training is a myth..?

Man, there must have been a sale on time machines back in the late 80s.

[wkmark]

What's the point of all this BS?

That cross training isn't needed..?

That realistic training is a myth..?

Man, there must have been a sale on time machines back in the late 80s.

For the past week or so, I have read the subjects on these forums and got to the point where I am like..What are you all talking about? Some stuff are explained so detailed that it gets confusing. Even this one, I am like er... what are you all talking about?

[YungChun]

For the past week or so, I have read the subjects on these forums and got to the point where I am like..What are you all talking about? Some stuff are explained so detailed that it gets confusing. Even this one, I am like er... what are you all talking about?

Kind of like....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GjSBDiY4cY

[wkmark]

Kind of like....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GjSBDiY4cY

HAHAHAHA!!!! I Love Family Guy!!!

[goju]

For the past week or so, I have read the subjects on these forums and got to the point where I am like..What are you all talking about? Some stuff are explained so detailed that it gets confusing. Even this one, I am like er... what are you all talking about?

no kidding! after reading soem of this and its like whatever happened to just punching someone in the **** face? lol

[t_niehoff]

You've earned an inability to fight and a big fkn mouth through hard work, that much is pretty clear.

You can try to wriggle out of it, but the I'm smarter than you bull**** just makes you look the fool.

You got pinged, and rightfully so for saying stupid things. There is no ad hominem way out of it now.

To use your own sword against you, you've got no idea what a fundamentally sound technique is, because apparently any talk of something which is fundamentally sound involves theory, thus anyone striving for fundamentally sound (read theoretically justified technique) is a theoretical non-fighter.


Sorry, but when people say stupid things . . . .

What is fundamentally sound does not involve theory, it involves EVIDENCE -- you can see it for yourself.

The real problem with evidence, however, is that a person needs the experience to appreciate the evidence.



Zing.


Oh, yeah, quite a zinger.



You're a moron if you think that:
1. your local McMMA gym is not interested in making money as a first priority.


So what?



2. that someone without any training whatsoever will not be able to fight with you and your "uber MMA skills". I've seen far too many competitive fighters smashed senseless by big, mean and malicious guys with NO formal training in bar fights it's no longer funny.


You have a well-developed fantasy life. You haven't seen ANY competitive fighters smashed in barfights. But, please, don't let me stop you from using your fantasy to base your conclusions on.



3. that MMA is something other than a ruleset to compete under. It is NOT a combat system of its own. There is just as much bull**** around under that name as any other.

No, there's not. MMA is a sport, and like all sports, its "players" focus on developing skills to actually play the game, and they do actually play the game. That minimizes the bullsh1t. It's difficult to talk about the judo chop as the answer to the takedown (ala Cheung) when you can't really pull it off. So instead of theories and nonsense, they focus on those things that they actually see consistently working against trained, skilled, in condition, athletic fighters. And to work against them, whatever it is needs to be fundamentally sound.

[YungChun]

The real problem with evidence, however, is that a person needs the experience to appreciate the evidence.


Not really you just need to open your eyes.. What works is all around us....

I would ask where the preponderance of evidence is that "elbow clinch fighting" is the focus of VT and also for evidence showing how that consistently wins fights..

[SAAMAG]

no kidding! after reading soem of this and its like whatever happened to just punching someone in the **** face? lol

That's what I did the other day training the clinch!! Worked for me!

[t_niehoff]

Not really you just need to open your eyes.. What works is all around us....


That's my point -- yes, it is. The trouble is most people don't "see" it. And they don't see it because it takes an "educated eye" which comes from experience. For example, anyone who "opens their eyes" will know that forms and unrealistic drills are useless for developing skill. Yet people continue to do these things.



I would ask where the preponderance of evidence is that "elbow clinch fighting" is the focus of VT and also for evidence showing how that consistently wins fights..

Everything in WCK -- EVERYTHING -- points to WCK being a close range, attached fighting method. EVERYTHING. ALL the evidence points that way -- from the faat mun (which makes it explicit), to the forms, the terminology, the kuit, the dummy, its drills. But people without "educated eyes" don't see it -- even though it is right before their eyes. They don't see it even when it is pointed out to them!

[YungChun]

I wrote:



I would ask where the preponderance of evidence is that "elbow clinch fighting" is the focus of VT and also for evidence showing how that consistently wins fights..




Everything in WCK -- EVERYTHING -- points to WCK being a close range, attached fighting method. EVERYTHING. ALL the evidence points that way -- from the faat mun (which makes it explicit), to the forms, the terminology, the kuit, the dummy, its drills. But people without "educated eyes" don't see it -- even though it is right before their eyes. They don't see it even when it is pointed out to them!

And you:

1. Failed to present any evidence..

2. Changed the subject to "attached".

3. Referenced the ad hominem..

Alrighty then... :rolleyes::D:p

[YungChun]

If there is no bridge you make one...

Does not have to mean "attached"...

Unless...

By attached you mean you fire off a fist to the face...

Is what you mainly do------use a WCK single necktie and elbow with the other arm? And then switch off? This is what I imagine...from what you write....given no specifics.

How many elbow attacks are there in the jong?

What is your highest % WCK attached combination attack against good fighters????

[t_niehoff]

If there is no bridge you make one...

Does not have to mean "attached"...

Unless...

By attached you mean you fire off a fist to the face...

Is what you mainly do------use a WCK single necktie and elbow with the other arm? And then switch off? This is what I imagine...

A "bridge" (kiu) is not a punch in the face. A bridge is a just what the term means -- like a bridge across a river. There is even a kuit that says the master fights from the bridge, the novice from across the river. A bridge involves SUSTAINED CONTACT, not momentary contact (a block is not a bridge).

Yes, you can hold and hit (lop da, right?). But you can also pull, push, lift, wedge, press, slice, etc. You can have sustained contact with your opponent's arms, his body, his neck, his head, his leg, etc.

[Knifefighter]

Everything in WCK -- EVERYTHING -- points to WCK being a close range, attached fighting method. EVERYTHING. ALL the evidence points that way -- from the faat mun (which makes it explicit), to the forms, the terminology, the kuit, the dummy, its drills. But people without "educated eyes" don't see it -- even though it is right before their eyes. They don't see it even when it is pointed out to them!

Actually, I'm going to disagree with this also. I think the evidence (at least when it has been used effectively) is for WC being an outside fighting system. If you watch most fights where the WC guy was doing the best, it was when he was on the outside and his opponent was having problems getting into range.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, I'm going to disagree with this also. I think the evidence (at least when it has been used effectively) is for WC being an outside fighting system. If you watch most fights where the WC guy was doing the best, it was when he was on the outside and his opponent was having problems getting into range.

I agree, anytime the "gab is bridged" it resulted in clinch, takedown, ground work and submission.
No "attached fighting" there.

As a side point, outside of MT clinch work with knees and elbows, do you ever see any "attached fighting" ?

[YungChun]

A "bridge" (kiu) is not a punch in the face. A bridge is a just what the term means -- like a bridge across a river. There is even a kuit that says the master fights from the bridge, the novice from across the river. A bridge involves SUSTAINED CONTACT, not momentary contact (a block is not a bridge).

Yes, you can hold and hit (lop da, right?). But you can also pull, push, lift, wedge, press, slice, etc. You can have sustained contact with your opponent's arms, his body, his neck, his head, his leg, etc.

Fighting against those who will not hold center you are left with precious few sustained bridges.. Given that, I re-ask the question about what you use most of the time.... single neck tie with elbows?

If the opponent is not in the center and then you are going to try to bridge with this arms then you are so far away from what Chun is that you might as well call it T's homestyle whoopazz..kuen.

Where are all the elbow strikes in the jong?

[t_niehoff]

1. Failed to present any evidence..


As I said, EVERYTHING in WCK is the evidence that points to WCK being close range, attached fighting. The problem is you look at it but don't "see" it.

Our signature drill, the heart of WCK, is an attached drill. Why? To practice attached skills. Why? To not fight attached? Do you not "see" it?

Our signature horse, the YJKYM (parallel stance), is for contact/attached fighting. What other arts use parallel stances? Judo, wrestling, even MT in their clinch. And guess what horse you use in that signature drill? Do you not "see" it?

I could go on and on, but I'd be wasting my time.



2. Changed the subject to "attached".


I didn't switch the subject to "attached" -- you even used that word in your post!



3. Referenced the ad hominem..

Alrighty then... :rolleyes::D:p


I'm sorry but you don't "see" it.

[YungChun]

Actually, I'm going to disagree with this also. I think the evidence (at least when it has been used effectively) is for WC being an outside fighting system. If you watch most fights where the WC guy was doing the best, it was when he was on the outside and his opponent was having problems getting into range.

So much for the "educated eyes" theory...:cool:

[YungChun]

I didn't switch the subject to "attached" -- you even used that word in your post!




I'm sorry but you don't "see" it.



You're slipping..

You responded to this post..

Not really you just need to open your eyes.. What works is all around us....

I would ask where the preponderance of evidence is that "elbow clinch fighting" is the focus of VT and also for evidence showing how that consistently wins fights..


And we count the use of the term "attached" ummm how many times...???

Still no evidence..


Still no answers..

Where are the elbow attacks in the jong?

What are the high % Chun moves you use against good fighters?

Where is all the evidence of seeing good fighters using attached elbow blows in the clinch to win fights?

[Knifefighter]

I agree, anytime the "gab is bridged" it resulted in clinch, takedown, ground work and submission.
No "attached fighting" there.

As a side point, outside of MT clinch work with knees and elbows, do you ever see any "attached fighting" ?

Pummelling, over/under, double overs, double unders, ****zers, body locks, etc... all of that is attached fighting.

[t_niehoff]

Fighting against those who will not hold center you are left with precious few sustained bridges.. Given that, I re-ask the question about what you use most of the time.... single neck tie with elbows?


Anytime you are in range I can create a sustained bridge.

Sometimes I pull the neck/head -- it depends on what is open.



If the opponent is not in the center and then you are going to try to bridge with this arms then you are so far away from what Chun is that you might as well call it T's homestyle whoopazz..kuen.


What do you mean "opponent not in the center"?

What I do is control my opponent while striking him. There is no "what do you do most of the time" -- it is an adaptable strategy that depends on what your opponent gives you.



Where are all the elbow strikes in the jong?

Where are all the punches in the jong? ;)

The jong isn't a heavy bag to practice finishing strikes on -- it is a device to develop our bridges (and body leverage).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Pummelling, over/under, double overs, double unders, ****zers, body locks, etc... all of that is attached fighting.

You are right and I think we may have come upon the problem here.
YOU think attached fighting and you think what you wrote, I see that and I think standing grappling.
I think attached fighting I think "holding and hitting".

[Knifefighter]

As I said, EVERYTHING in WCK is the evidence that points to WCK being close range, attached fighting. The problem is you look at it but don't "see" it.

Our signature drill, the heart of WCK, is an attached drill. Why? To practice attached skills. Why? To not fight attached? Do you not "see" it?

Our signature horse, the YJKYM (parallel stance), is for contact/attached fighting. What other arts use parallel stances? Judo, wrestling, even MT in their clinch. And guess what horse you use in that signature drill? Do you not "see" it?.

Those things are not evidence of attached fighting. Those things are evidence of theory of the way fighting is supposed to be. Those things are drills that are far removed from the actual movements done in a fighting context.

Theory and unrealistic drills are only evidence of theory and unrealistic drills.

Evidence is people actually doing it against other skilled, resisting opponents.

[t_niehoff]

Actually, I'm going to disagree with this also. I think the evidence (at least when it has been used effectively) is for WC being an outside fighting system. If you watch most fights where the WC guy was doing the best, it was when he was on the outside and his opponent was having problems getting into range.

Because what most people in WCK focus on is punching, so not surprisingly that's what they do "best."

However, what WCK movement are they using other than the punch? None. You don't see all the things they learn and practice in the forms and drills (chi sao, lop sao, etc.). Why? Because those things don't work in unattached fighting, they work in attached fighting. And if you look at attached fighting, you see those sorts of actions (in MT, MMA, dirty boxing, etc.).

The WCK punch is the tool that we typically use on the outside to join with, so you'd expect to see it working on the outside.

[YungChun]

Anytime you are in range I can create a sustained bridge.

Sometimes I pull the neck/head -- it depends on what is open.


If they are not in the center that's all you've got. Unless you are going to tickle them to death while you hit them..

There is no evidence to suggest that attached elbow methods are:

1. Wing Chun's method
2. Effective against good fighters



What do you mean "opponent not in the center"?

Okay 30 year Chun guy doesn't know what I mean by not in the center.. Mmmm-kay..



What I do is control my opponent while striking him. There is no "what do you do most of the time" -- it is an adaptable strategy that depends on what your opponent gives you.


Most fighters have a handful of moves that are high % for them.. Name yours..



Where are all the punches in the jong? ;)


Nice winkie.. ;)

Plenty of strikes in the Jong..

Yet let's see..um ZERO elbow strikes in the jong when you say is dominated by elbow strikes... Mmmmm-kay..



The jong isn't a heavy bag to practice finishing strikes on -- it is a device to develop our bridges (and body leverage).

Ohhhhhh so Chun's elbow emphasis is for finishing...

WOW!

[Knifefighter]

You are right and I think we may have come upon the problem here.
YOU think attached fighting and you think what you wrote, I see that and I think standing grappling.
I think attached fighting I think "holding and hitting".

Holding and hitting is part of what you do with those things that I listed. Also, boxing has a whole arsenal of techniques for how to set up a strikes from the clinch... kind of a holding, pushing and creating space, and then hitting. Technically, not holding and hitting, but the hits are set up from the hold... and I would consider holding, setting up to create an opening, and then striking while letting go to also be attached fighting.

[t_niehoff]

Those things are not evidence of attached fighting. Those things are evidence of theory of the way fighting is supposed to be. Those things are drills that are far removed from the actual movements done in a fighting context.

Theory and unrealistic drills are only evidence of theory and unrealistic drills.

Evidence is people actually doing it against other skilled, resisting opponents.

Yes, yes, but what I am saying is that if you look at the "catalog" or curriclulum of WCK, all the evidence points to attached fighting. That's the way the method "wants" you to go. Now, whether or not it will work is another story.

If you look at "good" examples (non WCK) of attached fighting where they are trying to control while striking (MT, dirty boxing), you see actions similar to what you see in the WCK curriculum.

[YungChun]

You don't see all the things they learn and practice in the forms and drills (chi sao, lop sao, etc.). Why? Because those things don't work in unattached fighting, they work in attached fighting. And if you look at attached fighting, you see those sorts of actions (in MT, MMA, dirty boxing, etc.).


Please post a few clips of Chun moves working in an attached fashion..



The WCK punch is the tool that we typically use on the outside to join with, so you'd expect to see it working on the outside.


So when the punch misses or hits the target (body/head) how will you "join" with something I just said before was for making the bridge but you then said wasn't because it was not sustained contact...?

[Knifefighter]

However, what WCK movement are they using other than the punch? None. You don't see all the things they learn and practice in the forms and drills (chi sao, lop sao, etc.). Why? Because those things don't work in unattached fighting, they work in attached fighting. And if you look at attached fighting, you see those sorts of actions (in MT, MMA, dirty boxing, etc.).



If you are claiming that functional WC is going to be no different than what we are already seeing in the clinch, then I am in agreement with that.

[YungChun]

Holding and hitting is part of what you do with those things that I listed. Also, boxing has a whole arsenal of techniques for how to set up a strikes from the clinch... kind of a holding, pushing and creating space, and then hitting. Technically, not holding and hitting, but the hits are set up from the hold... and I would consider holding, setting up to create an opening, and then striking while letting go to also be attached fighting.

Modern Boxing is very limited in this regard.. Old school bare knuckle had way more stuff like this..

To be fair Chun does have a single necktie...

IMO if you look at old school bare knuckle boxing methods you will start to see more of what Chun is like, but still a different flavor.

[YungChun]

If you are claiming that functional WC is going to be no different than what we are already seeing in the clinch, then I am in agreement with that.

Then you agree that you can go to any MMA club and learn Chun...

Now as a professional, looking at the forms and drills, does that jive with this theory?

[Knifefighter]

Modern Boxing is very limited in this regard.. Old school bare knuckle had way more stuff like this..

When did you box? Who was your coach? How long? What competitions did you enter?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Holding and hitting is part of what you do with those things that I listed. Also, boxing has a whole arsenal of techniques for how to set up a strikes from the clinch... kind of a holding, pushing and creating space, and then hitting. Technically, not holding and hitting, but the hits are set up from the hold... and I would consider holding, setting up to create an opening, and then striking while letting go to also be attached fighting.

Of course, yes, I know, but that is not WC, is it?
WC does NOT have the tools you described earlier:

Pummelling, over/under, double overs, double unders, ****zers, body locks, etc... all of that is attached fighting.
Nor is it trained like "clinch boxing", is it?
As you know, clinch boxing is more based on hooks and uppercuts and ( in the dirty sense) rakes, low blows, head buts and so forth.
WC does NOt prioritize the hoks and uppercuts that are ideal in clinch boxing and while it may have elbows and such, again, they are not taught liek they are in clinch boxing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you look at "good" examples (non WCK) of attached fighting where they are trying to control while striking (MT, dirty boxing), you see actions similar to what you see in the WCK curriculum.

The point is that you don't see them.

[t_niehoff]

If they are not in the center that's all you've got. Unless you are going to tickle them to death while you hit them..


What the hell are you talking about? Define "in the center"?



There is no evidence to suggest that attached elbow methods are:

1. Wing Chun's method
2. Effective against good fighters


Anytime you are attached to an opponent, you can only try to break out, clinch and hit or clinch and take him down. Now, the elbow is a major weapon in close, when attached. The elbow is not a long range weapon. All clinch arts make heavy use of the elbow (and forearm).

In WCK, the BJ form has loads of elbows (so does the CK), it has the hook (for the clinch), the circling steps (for the clinch), etc.

There is even a kuit that tells you the "BJ is not for the outer gate" -- that it for the inside. CK gives you the tools to break the opponent's structure, and BJ give you the tools to finish him once his structure is broken.

Did you not learn this stuff?



Okay 30 year Chun guy doesn't know what I mean by not in the center.. Mmmm-kay..


Not the way you're using it!



Most fighters have a handful of moves that are high % for them.. Name yours..


Ok, tan, bong, fook.



Nice winkie.. ;)

Plenty of strikes in the Jong..


I said PUNCHES. Where are all the punches in the jong?



Yet let's see..um ZERO elbow strikes in an art you say is dominated by elbow strikes... Mmmmm-kay..!

I don't know, but my BJ form is mostly elbows.



hhhhhh so Chun's elbow emphasis is for finishing...

WOW!

A women's art as the story goes, right? Now, I know it is an allegory, but do you think a women wants to try and punch -- and a straight punch at that! -- some guys our or use a weapon that is much more durable, much stronger, much more powerful, etc.?

[YungChun]

When did you box? Who was your coach? How long? What competitions did you enter?

What does this have to do with the history of the sport?

Do I have to be a professional football player to know what plays are used? I mean really...

Do you deny that the old school bare knuckle boxing used more of these kinds of tactics??? This stuff is common knowledge.

[t_niehoff]

If you are claiming that functional WC is going to be no different than what we are already seeing in the clinch, then I am in agreement with that.

Exactly.

What WCK provides is a strategy for attached fighting and some tools for implementing that strategy -- but it is nothing unique. Clinch is clinch.

[t_niehoff]

The point is that you don't see them.

Sure you do.

[Knifefighter]

Then you agree that you can go to any MMA club and learn Chun...

You can go to many (non any because many TMA's are now calling themselves MMA and are not teaching functional fighting) MMA schools and learn functional close range fighting. Functional close range WC will be no different than any other type of functional close range fighting.


Now as a professional, looking at the forms and drills, does that jive with this theory?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

[YungChun]

What the hell are you talking about? Define "in the center"?


I won't even bother. Go buy a Chun book we'll wait.



Anytime you are attached to an opponent, you can only try to break out, clinch and hit or clinch and take him down. Now, the elbow is a major weapon in close, when attached. The elbow is not a long range weapon. All clinch arts make heavy use of the elbow (and forearm).

No problem here.



In WCK, the BJ form has loads of elbows (so does the CK), it has the hook (for the clinch), the circling steps (for the clinch), etc.

I don't agree that Chun has "loads of elbows".. Taking a look at all 4 fist sets clearly shows they are there but in reduced numbers as compared to striking.



There is even a kuit that tells you the "BJ is not for the outer gate" -- that it for the inside. CK gives you the tools to break the opponent's structure, and BJ give you the tools to finish him once his structure is broken.

Agreed but those moves are there to regain Chun's preferred range, which is NOT the clinch.. And several "good fighters" here and elsewhere can see that as clear as day.



Did you not learn this stuff?


Not the way you're using it!




Ok, tan, bong, fook.


Complete BS answer.

If I asked Dale the same question he could give me a real answer I am sure.



I said PUNCHES. Where are all the punches in the jong?

I said strikes where are the elbows (even 1 would be nice) in the jong?



I don't know, but my BJ form is mostly elbows.

Sure..

As I said for regaining space/range, elbow position (recovery) and facing...

I love the elbows... I've even used the single tie with the elbow... but this does not represent what most of the art is about.



A women's art as the story goes, right? Now, I know it is an allegory, but do you think a women wants to try and punch -- and a straight punch at that! -- some guys our or use a weapon that is much more durable, much stronger, much more powerful, etc.?

I love the elbows, but I don't agree there is a preponderance of them in the art..

For finishing? Okay...and you still haven't offered up a shred of evidence for any of the key questions posed.

[YungChun]

I'm not sure what you are asking here.


If in your professional opinion, the Chun forms and the drills (any of them) reflect clinch fighting as you know it..

[Knifefighter]

What does this have to do with the history of the sport?

Do I have to be a professional football player to know what plays are used? I mean really...

Do you deny that the old school bare knuckle boxing used more of these kinds of tactics??? This stuff is common knowledge.

That's what I thought. If you would have boxed, especially if you had trained with a coach who specialized in infighting, you would know that modern boxing has many sophisticated techniques for punching out of the clinch. Old school boxing was less sophisticated in pretty much all aspects.

[YungChun]

That's what I thought. If you would have boxed, especially if you had trained with a coach who specialized in infighting, you would know that modern boxing has many sophisticated techniques for punching out of the clinch. Old school boxing was less sophisticated in pretty much all aspects.

The old school fighters were allowed to fight while hitting and holding...at least some... They used all kinds of things that modern western boxing doesn't...

Did you fight in bare knuckle fights of 100 years ago? Same BS...

There were less rules, no gloves... This means more stuff was allowed...and that different tactics could/would work.

[monji112000]

No, no, no. You're missing the point. Of course high level guys can do things we can't -- but you are confusing performance ability with the skill itself.

Just because you can do something or make something work against a scrub or someone less skilled than yourself doesn't make it fundamentally sound. What makes something fundamentally sound is that it will work not only against scrubs but at all levels. For example, we know that the sprawl is a fundamentally sound move/way to deal with a shoot because it works at every level, from beginner to world-class.



All fighters adapt -- that is the game. Yes, being better is relative (they may be better than me but worse than someone else). We get better by training with people better than ourselves.



That's not what I said. Something is fundamentally sound if you see it work consistently among high skill-level fighters (boxers, wrestlers, etc.). How else can you know?



The jab is a fundamentally sound move -- you can see it used consistently and successfully among high level fighters.

Just because something is fundamentally sound doesn't mean it will work by itself -- like any skill, you need to put in the work to develop it, and it will only be as good as you make it. But the point is that you are starting with something (the jab) that has proved itself to be fundamentally sound.

If, however, you started with something that wasn't fundamentally sound, you would never develop any significant skill no matter how much practice you put in.



You are using an argument that all theoretical nonfighters use (why learn groundfighting? if my opponent is a good groundfighter and gets me to the ground I can't beat him there, so why waste my time learning groundfighting?). But instead of trying to speculate, look at the evidence of what really happens -- lots of fighters routinely hit the ground with better groundfighters yet survive, lots of fighters mix it up in stand up with better strikers and survive. etc. The point is you don't need to beat him at his strength, you just need to have enough skill at his strength to survive and take the game to your strength.

I trained with boxers. I know that I'm not going to outbox them. But I learned enough to survive if I get caught on the outside -- I have trained to keep my guard up, chin down, move my head, circle, etc. until I can get out of range or clinch. I'm not going to try to outbox them. Now, if you haven't trained, you won't keep your guard up, chin down, move your head, circle, etc. -- you'll just get hammered.



Go train with some good fighters and fight trainers that can teach you what to do.

you are creating terms, rules and ideas that have no real meaning. "fundamentally sound", "skills" ect..

Nothing works all the time, and nothing is going to blanket technique you can pull out.. there are allot of details the vary depending on the situation, that require feeling, that may make something not applicable. As I said before they have limited places were they work better than others, and have limited results.

there is a difference between trying to be like someone, and taking what you can from someone and adding it to what you do. I can say sprawl, underhooks, wizzer with a collar tie, or some of the more interesting Judo stuff.. but from what I have learned they are all limited to my understanding, and my ability to apply them and adapt. The fact that they are "fundamental", is only relevant to you. Mostly the only thing that matters is you keep an open mind, you workout with allot different people, you try things, and you find someone to help answer questions..

[Knifefighter]

If in your professional opinion, the Chun forms and the drills (any of them) reflect clinch fighting as you know it..

My personal opinion (you should know this by now) is that forms never reflect any aspect of any type of fighting.

As far as the drills, not the way I've seen them taught. However, as I said earlier, it wouldn't be that hard for someone to change them to be functional... in which case they would look pretty much like clinch fighting.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I think attached fighting I think "holding and hitting".

Hehe, I know a guy whose simple explanation of Kung Fu was "hit-grab-hit-grab-hit-grab" etc. I liked it. :)

To me, attached fighting basically means "coherent uprooting (pushing/pulling) and disrupting (hitting/breaking)." It can happen any number of ways, so long as there's some form of bridge connecting my centre to my opponent's centre, be it the upper or lower limbs/body.

[YungChun]

As far as the drills, not the way I've seen them taught. However, as I said earlier, it wouldn't be that hard for someone to change them to be functional... in which case they would look pretty much like clinch fighting.

Right so if you changed them... Well Christ, if we changed synchronized swimming enough it could be mud wrestling... (Paul this is your que :)) That doesn't make one the other.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sure you do.

Please show.

[Knifefighter]

The old school fighters were allowed to fight while hitting and holding...at least some... They used all kinds of things that modern western boxing doesn't...

And that is exactly why they probably weren't as sophisticated in the techniques for hitting out of the clinch. If you can hit while holding, you're more likely to develop techniques for that. If you have to let go to hit, you're going to develop more techs for that.

Whatever the old school guys did is pretty irrelevant to what I said, though. The fact is, regardless of what the old school guys did, modern boxing has a whole range of sophisticated techniques for hitting out of the clinch.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Right so if you changed them... Well Christ, if we changed synchronized swimming enough it could be mud wrestling... (Paul this is your que :)) That doesn't make one the other.

http://img4a.glowfoto.com/images/2008/03/21-0159586076T.jpg

http://www.gagreport.com/Funny%20Pictures/sexy_2_1_06_album/images/mud_wrestling_chicks_jpg.jpg

[t_niehoff]

I won't even bother. Go buy a Chun book.


I'm sorry that I don't understand your way of using the term.



I don't agree that Chun has "loads of elbows".. Taking a look at all 4 fist sets clearly shows they are there but in reduced numbers as compared to striking.


The different sets/forms pertain to different aspects of WCK's approach, so you shouldn't expect to see something like elbows represented equally in all the forms.



Agreed but those moves are there to regain Chun's preferred range, which is NOT the clinch.. And several "good fighters" here and elsewhere can see that as clear as day.


No, you want to be in that range, and you want to stay there. This is where you can do real damage with your most potent weapons. But to get there (safely) requires that you break his structure (CK) and keep it broken. The BJ also contains the gup gao sao (emergency hands) for when you lose control.



Not the way you're using it!


Well, you're not alone.



Complete BS answer.

If I asked Dale the same question he could give me a real answer I am sure.


It depends on where I am -- I usually strike (punch) to make contact, I usually use tan, fook, pak, etc., (SNT stuff) after joining to move to short bridge range and/or control his bridges, where I typically use bong/lan/lop (CK stuff) to destroy my opponent's structure, then I typically use seizing and finishing strikes (BJ stuff).



I said strikes where are the elbows (even 1 would be nice) in the jong?


And I told you, the jong is for developing your bridges and body leverage (to destroy his structure), not to finish.



Sure..

As I said for regaining space/range, elbow position (recovery) and facing...

I love the elbows... I've even used the single tie with the elbow... but this does not represent what most of the art is about.


I NEVER said it was. WCK in a nutshell is controlling while striking your opponent. The controlling aspect is what most of the art is about. That's the hard part. Hitting the other guy is easy if you don't care about getting hit back!



I love the elbows, but I don't agree there is a preponderance of them in the art..

For finishing? Okay...

It depends on where you are.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Whatever the old school guys did is pretty irrelevant to what I said, though. The fact is, regardless of what the old school guys did, modern boxing has a whole range of sophisticated techniques for hitting out of the clinch.

And do any of them look like WC?

[Knifefighter]

Right so if you changed them... Well Christ, if we changed synchronized swimming enough it could be mud wrestling... (Paul this is your que :)) That doesn't make one the other.

Like I said, when it comes to being in the clinch, people are going to have their own interpretations of what is WC or not.

Whatever you want to label it, the fact is, what works, works... what doesn't, doesn't.

And what works is pretty much what you are already seeing in MMA.

[YungChun]

And do any of them look like WC?

Funny you should ask..

Hmmm..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Blow2.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/John_L_Sullivan.jpghttp://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/j/je/jem_ward.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cribb_vs_Molineaux_1811.jpg


Fights under these rules were typically contested with bare knuckles. The rules also allowed for a broad range of fighting including holds and throws of the opponent. Spiked shoes, within limits, were also allowed. Also included were provisions dealing with how wagers would be resolved if various events such as interference by the law, darkness, or cancellations occurred. In contrast with modern boxing rules based upon the Marquess of Queensberry rules, a round ended with a man downed by punch or throw, whereupon he was given 30 seconds to rest and eight additional seconds to "come to scratch" or return to the centre of the ring where a "scratch line" was drawn and square off with his opponent once more. Consequently, there were no round limits to fights. When a man could not come to scratch, he would be declared loser and the fight would be brought to a halt. Fights could also end if broken up beforehand by crowd riot, police interference or chicanery, or if both men were willing to accept that the contest was a draw. While fights could have enormous numbers of rounds, the rounds in practice could be quite short with fighters pretending to go down from minor blows to take advantage of the 30-second rest period.


Rules that are WORLDS apart..


Paul you are so naughty...! ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Funny you should ask..

Hmmm..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Blow2.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/John_L_Sullivan.jpg

[/img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cribb_vs_Molineaux_1811.jpg[/img]




Rules that are WORLDS apart..


Paul you are so naughty...! ;)

And they say BJJ is gay, LOL !

[t_niehoff]

And they say BJJ is gay, LOL !

What? You don't train in your long underwear?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What? You don't train in your long underwear?

I'm not THAT canadian !

[Knifefighter]

And do any of them look like WC?

In my opinion, no. However, some of the WC guys around here are so desperate to see WC in anything, I'm sure they would tell you there are pak saus, guan saus, am saus, and jut saus all over the place.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Jens pulver and dirty boxing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxh4a2r0sBw&feature=related

[sanjuro_ronin]

In my opinion, no. However, some of the WC guys around here are so desperate to see WC in anything, I'm sure they would tell you there are pak saus, guan saus, am saus, and jut saus all over the place.

My experience is that clinch boxing involves hooks and uppercuts and elbows "up and moving", to get control and to get the clinch/plum in and lots of neck control, angling to the outside 45 and so forth.
You don't see that, typically, in WC.

[t_niehoff]

My experience is that clinch boxing involves hooks and uppercuts and elbows "up and moving", to get control and to get the clinch/plum in and lots of neck control, angling to the outside 45 and so forth.
You don't see that, typically, in WC.

What do you mean that you "don't see that typically in WC"?

Is the neck pulling hand in the first section of your dummy? Do you shift/angle to the outside when you perform it?

The WCK punch is an elbow down punch, like the uppercut. The BJ has the WCK hook and lots of elbows.

What you are really saying is that you don't see most people in WCK use these things -- and I would agree. But that's because they are not trying to control their opponent while striking him. Most are trying to make their WCK fit into a boxing/kickboixing model because they never learned the WCK method..

[YungChun]

In my opinion, no. However, some of the WC guys around here are so desperate to see WC in anything, I'm sure they would tell you there are pak saus, guan saus, am saus, and jut saus all over the place.

I agree. Some even see Chun in MMA clinch fighting....

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you mean that you "don't see that typically in WC"?

Is the neck pulling hand in the first section of your dummy? Do you shift/angle to the outside when you perform it?

The WCK punch is an elbow down punch, like the uppercut. The BJ has the WCK hook and lots of elbows.

What you are really saying is that you don't see most people in WCK use these things -- and I would agree. But that's because they are not trying to control their opponent while striking him. Most are trying to make their WCK fit into a boxing/kickboixing model because they never learned the WCK method..

Please show me this WC of yours.
To compare the WC punch to an uppercut simply because the elbow is down is grasping at straws bro.

[t_niehoff]

Please show me this WC of yours.


I'll be happy too -- just pay me a visit. :)

But, are you saying that WCK doesn't have those things I mentioned?



To compare the WC punch to an uppercut simply because the elbow is down is grasping at straws bro.

No, I'm saying that in a clinch (close range), you need to keep your elbow down when you strike your opponent when he is facing you (or he can take your back, do a duckunder, etc.), and the uppercut and WCK punch do that (keep the elbow down). In fact, the mechanics of a WCK punch is much more similar to teh uppercut than the cross.

[YungChun]

What you are really saying is that you don't see most people in WCK use these things -- and I would agree. But that's because they are not trying to control their opponent while striking him. Most are trying to make their WCK fit into a boxing/kickboixing model because they never learned the WCK method..



No you don't see that because:

1. They don't want to clinch..the next step is the ground and a tap.

2. They want to maintain Chun's preferred range, which is not the clinch..

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of0rgt1qxR4

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'll be happy too -- just pay me a visit. :)

But, are you saying that WCK doesn't have those things I mentioned?



No, I'm saying that in a clinch (close range), you need to keep your elbow down when you strike your opponent when he is facing you (or he can take your back, do a duckunder, etc.), and the uppercut and WCK punch do that (keep the elbow down). In fact, the mechanics of a WCK punch is much more similar to teh uppercut than the cross.

This is where I drop a Terrenceisim and say that I don't need to coem and visit you, you should be able to show me evidence. :D
I a saying that, if you look at the videos from Jen that I posted as examples, WC has to be greatly modified to be "dirty boxing" and even more so to be "attached fighting".

[sanjuro_ronin]

The power dynamics of a WC vertical punch (typical) compared to a uppercut are, well, anyone that has done both boxing and wc can tell you there are more differences than similarities.

Now, yes, you do have to keep your elbows down in clinch work, but for STRIKING, in that range, you are throwing hooks and uppercuts, not straights and the elbow comes up accordingly.

[YungChun]

This is where I drop a Terrenceisim and say that I don't need to coem and visit you, you should be able to show me evidence. :D
I a saying that, if you look at the videos from Jen that I posted as examples, WC has to be greatly modified to be "dirty boxing" and even more so to be "attached fighting".

I'm with you one this, but.....

Chun does have a shoulder butt..elbows, etc.. We can jam and hit... So some of it can translate, but as I said most Chun folks want to avoid the clinch not get into a clinch with someone who specializes in that for getting to ground work.

I will play with some of that next time I can.. I feel now that it's going to get me taken down that much easier, but we'll see.

[YungChun]

Now, yes, you do have to keep your elbows down in clinch work, but for STRIKING, in that range, you are throwing hooks and uppercuts, not straights and the elbow comes up accordingly.

Then we would use elbows, and or the strike with the elbow way down and the strike then rises like an upper cut, esp under the jaw.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm with you one this, but.....

Chun does have a shoulder butt..elbows, etc.. We can jam and hit... So some of it can translate, but as I said most Chun folks want to avoid the clinch not get into a clinch with someone who specializes in that for getting to ground work.

I will play with some of that next time I can.. I feel now that it's going to get me taken down that much easier, but we'll see.

A valid point and so does taiji ( have shoulder butts and elbows, etc) but I am not saying that there aren't similarities, as you know, every style of fighting is going to have those,that isn't the point.
The point is that, IF WC is a form of attached fighting then grappling and clinch work would be the priority, they are not.
If WC was a type of dirty boxing, then it would be less "centerline oriented" and more based on hooks, uppercuts and such.
It is not that WC CAN'T be those things, it is that WC is NOT any of those things UNLESS it is modified to BE those things.
And if that is the case then WC is whatever anyone wants it to be and a such there is no "right" WC or "wrong" WC, just PERSONAL WC.

[YungChun]

A valid point and so does taiji ( have shoulder butts and elbows, etc) but I am not saying that there aren't similarities, as you know, every style of fighting is going to have those,that isn't the point.
The point is that, IF WC is a form of attached fighting then grappling and clinch work would be the priority, they are not.
If WC was a type of dirty boxing, then it would be less "centerline oriented" and more based on hooks, uppercuts and such.
It is not that WC CAN'T be those things, it is that WC is NOT any of those things UNLESS it is modified to BE those things.
And if that is the case then WC is whatever anyone wants it to be and a such there is no "right" WC or "wrong" WC, just PERSONAL WC.

Which is why I see those close range moves as options for when we are too close and in order to recover to our preferred range while also doing damage.. Also though they could be used to finish, as I have done that too...elbow to face with the single neck grab...

[t_niehoff]

The power dynamics of a WC vertical punch (typical) compared to a uppercut are, well, anyone that has done both boxing and wc can tell you there are more differences than similarities.


I don't care how the WCK punch is done "typically" since typically it has no power and uses only the arm. But when you look at how Robert, Alan, and even Gary Lam (his "sitting power") you see that the mechanics in the WCK punch is more like an uppercut that extends out.



Now, yes, you do have to keep your elbows down in clinch work, but for STRIKING, in that range, you are throwing hooks and uppercuts, not straights and the elbow comes up accordingly.

The hooks are done from the side (since if you raise your elbow when he is in front of you he will punish you) or you will use elbows if closer. The uppercut is just what in WCK is called a rising punch, and it uses the same base mechanics as the WCK thrusting punch except the latter extends.

[t_niehoff]

A valid point and so does taiji ( have shoulder butts and elbows, etc) but I am not saying that there aren't similarities, as you know, every style of fighting is going to have those,that isn't the point.
The point is that, IF WC is a form of attached fighting then grappling and clinch work would be the priority, they are not.
If WC was a type of dirty boxing, then it would be less "centerline oriented" and more based on hooks, uppercuts and such.
It is not that WC CAN'T be those things, it is that WC is NOT any of those things UNLESS it is modified to BE those things.
And if that is the case then WC is whatever anyone wants it to be and a such there is no "right" WC or "wrong" WC, just PERSONAL WC.

No, because you are thinking only in terms of striking. The so-called centerline is simply the fastest line of entry (how I move from the outside to the inside). But once you are in and have control, the centerline isn't an issue.

[YungChun]

I don't care how the WCK punch is done "typically" since typically it has no power and uses only the arm. But when you look at how Robert, Alan, and even Gary Lam (his "sitting power") you see that the mechanics in the WCK punch is more like an uppercut that extends out.


From the guy who kept saying that Chun punches are nothing like boxing punches..

But actually those punches that you are talking about are not for the clinch range, Paul is quite correct.. Once in clinch range the punches are different (elbow way down) force vector is now rising...plus elbows..

You're contradicting yourself here as well stating just a few posts ago that these punches are for entry..........

Here's a question I know you can answer.. What's the Chinese name for that single neck tie..?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Which is why I see those close range moves as options for when we are too close and in order to recover to our preferred range while also doing damage.. Also though they could be used to finish, as I have done that too...elbow to face with the single neck grab...

Agreed, but the thing is, its ok for others NOT to fight that way.
This is where you get the typical TCMA mess, this notion that if it works for me THIS WAY, I AM RIGHT and everyone else that doe sit different is WRONG.
I would never use WC as an attached form of fighting because, in the clinch I would favour MT and my judo because both work better in the clinch, sure I would throw in some strikes too.
But if someone chooses to use it there and it works for them, great, it doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong, it means we are doing what works for US.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, because you are thinking only in terms of striking. The so-called centerline is simply the fastest line of entry (how I move from the outside to the inside). But once you are in and have control, the centerline isn't an issue.

Yes, in WC the centerline is NOT an issue.

:D

[YungChun]

Agreed, but the thing is, its ok for others NOT to fight that way.
This is where you get the typical TCMA mess, this notion that if it works for me THIS WAY, I AM RIGHT and everyone else that doe sit different is WRONG.

Agreed.... But some folks are just hard headed.. :D

[t_niehoff]

This is where I drop a Terrenceisim and say that I don't need to coem and visit you, you should be able to show me evidence. :D
I a saying that, if you look at the videos from Jen that I posted as examples, WC has to be greatly modified to be "dirty boxing" and even more so to be "attached fighting".

The evidence of what works in the clinch already exists.

You said that there is the neck tie. I pointed out WCK has the neck tie in the dummy. Then you say in dirty boxing they angle off with it, and I point out this is exactly what we do in the dummy. Then you say clinch has hooks, and I point out that the BJ has hooks (and the BJ is the toolbox for when we are on the inside). Then you say dirty box has the uppercut. Well, WCK has the "uppercut" in the CK form, and it is just a derivation of our standard WCK punch (which has the elbow down because it is for attached fighting -- you don't need, and it isn't helpful, to have your elbow down when doing unattached punching).

Do you use tok saos in boxing? Have someone grab your neck with their elbow down, now a tok sao makes sense (and MT uses them, as does wrestling). What is the guan sao for? To block low? Stupid. It's to chop like they do in wrestling. It's all there.

You just haven't seen anyone put it together from WCK because most everyone uses a boxing/kickboxing model instead of the WCK method (to join, close them down, break their structure, deliver your weapons, all the while sticking).

[t_niehoff]

Yes, in WC the centerline is NOT an issue.

:D

It's only an issue to a certain point.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The evidence of what works in the clinch already exists.

You said that there is the neck tie. I pointed out WCK has the neck tie in the dummy. Then you say in dirty boxing they angle off with it, and I point out this is exactly what we do in the dummy. Then you say clinch has hooks, and I point out that the BJ has hooks (and the BJ is the toolbox for when we are on the inside). Then you say dirty box has the uppercut. Well, WCK has the "uppercut" in the CK form, and it is just a derivation of our standard WCK punch (which has the elbow down because it is for attached fighting -- you don't need, and it isn't helpful, to have your elbow down when doing unattached punching).

Do you use tok saos in boxing? Have someone grab your neck with their elbow down, now a tok sao makes sense (and MT uses them, as does wrestling). What is the guan sao for? To block low? Stupid. It's to chop like they do in wrestling. It's all there.

You just haven't seen anyone put it together from WCK because most everyone uses a boxing/kickboxing model instead of the WCK method (to join, close them down, break their structure, deliver your weapons, all the while sticking).

T, you are doing what you have accused many others of doing, looking and seeing what you want to see based on how you want to interpret it.
Nothing wrong with that.

[YungChun]

I don't see anyone staying in that range and winning from that range with any consistency..

Let's see the clips..

[t_niehoff]

Agreed, but the thing is, its ok for others NOT to fight that way.
This is where you get the typical TCMA mess, this notion that if it works for me THIS WAY, I AM RIGHT and everyone else that doe sit different is WRONG.
I would never use WC as an attached form of fighting because, in the clinch I would favour MT and my judo because both work better in the clinch, sure I would throw in some strikes too.
But if someone chooses to use it there and it works for them, great, it doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong, it means we are doing what works for US.

Let me explain what I mean by "the method".

When you learn BJJ you don't just learn (1) a bunch of techniques-- more importantly (2) you learn to roll. You learn to roll and the techniques are there to help you roll better, but it is the rolling that is important. And that's why traditional JJJ doesn't produce good fighters -- they have the techniques but they don't learn and practice rolling.

When you learn to box, you don't just learn (1) a bunch of techniques -- more importantly (2) you learn to box. You learn to box and the techniques are there to help you box better, but it is the boxing that is important. If you learned the techniques but not how to box, you'd stink.

In WCK, you don't just learn (1) a bunch of techniques -- more importantly (2) you learn the method (which corresponds to rolling or boxing). You learn the method and the techniques are there to help you implement the method better, but it is the method that is important.

The WCK method is flexible -- just like GNP is flexible. But if you aren't taking the guy to the ground, dominating position, and striking him you aren't doing GNP, you aren't doing its method. And, when you don't do it's method, you find that you end up not using most of the material in the curriculum -- since the material is to help you use the method!

Similarly, WCK's method is to control while striking. If you don't use that method, you will end up not using most of its tools -- because the tools are there to help you use the method.

[t_niehoff]

T, you are doing what you have accused many others of doing, looking and seeing what you want to see based on how you want to interpret it.
Nothing wrong with that.

No, I'm doing it. And because I'm doing it, I see it. If you aren't doing it, you don't see it.

[SAAMAG]

I don't see anyone staying in that range and winning from that range with any consistency..

Let's see the clips..

Mir got knocked the **** out in that range in his last UFC fight. They were clinching and the guy did a neck grab and consistently punched with the other arm. Or in wing chun terms man geng sao with chou choi

[YungChun]

Mir got knocked the **** out in that range in his last UFC fight. They were clinching and the guy did a neck grab and consistently punched with the other arm. Or in wing chun terms man geng sao with chou choi

Any clip of that fight or similar fights?

In general I have not seen many folks, even among those known for this, consistently staying in and using that range to win... I have seen a lot of fights, but of course not all or even most of them...

If this is to follow what is a valid method.. Then we should seen many fights like this---based on T's method of validation.

[SAAMAG]

Any clip of that fight or similar fights?

In general I have not seen many folks, even among those known for this, consistently staying in and using that range to win... I have seen a lot of fights, but of course not all or even most of them...

If this is to follow what is a valid method.. Then we should seen many fights like this---based on T's method of validation.

Didn't the Alan Orr clip have Aaron using the same man geng sao da in it? I can't remember.

But I've seen plenty of fights where the neck grab was used in conjection with punches to win. Not uncommon. It's a universal technique...I've seen it used now in muay thai and wing chun, regular street fights, etc.

[SoCo KungFu]

Mir as mentioned. Practically 2/3 of Condit's fights. Silva destroyed Franklin in fight 1 with his clinch. Jen was known for his dirty boxing as is Couture. Not everybody gets "finished" in this range because a lot of guys either grapple and throw or work the body either knees or whatever. A stiff knee to the gut against someone not used to taking shots is about a good a way to finish a fight as any. Not much they can do when they're half puking on themselves.

Condit vs Miura was a beautiful back and forth of clinch range with Condit's MT vs Miura's Judo.

[SAAMAG]

Condit vs Miura was a beautiful back and forth of clinch range with Condit's MT vs Miura's Judo.

That WAS a great fight. I forgot all about that one.

[YungChun]

Didn't the Alan Orr clip have Aaron using the same man geng sao da in it? I can't remember.

But I've seen plenty of fights where the neck grab was used in conjection with punches to win. Not uncommon. It's a universal technique...I've seen it used now in muay thai and wing chun, regular street fights, etc.

Well let's see all the clips of it if there are so many.....

IMO if you put that on a decent MMA type fighter he is just going to go full clinch and then bang your past the Chun range and in full clinch range, which IMO is not Chun.. At that point you are a hair away from the ground and a tap...or you're going to be grappling.

This is about the idea of Chun STAYING in this range...

[SoCo KungFu]

Just go to one of the bootleg mma sites and search those fights mentioned. Or maybe youtube. I'm not going to post them here and get in trouble linking copyrighted material from pay per views.

[SoCo KungFu]

Didn't the Alan Orr clip have Aaron using the same man geng sao da in it? I can't remember.

But I've seen plenty of fights where the neck grab was used in conjection with punches to win. Not uncommon. It's a universal technique...I've seen it used now in muay thai and wing chun, regular street fights, etc.

That's something Wanderlei did a lot. You won't see a lot of that in US based MMA though, technically its illegal. Though I have seen a couple of times guys get away with it. You can put your hand on the neck to control, but actually grabbing is illegal. Why? I have no idea. Practically any other choke you can come up with is perfectly fine...

[SAAMAG]

I just don't feel like putting forth the effort for something that someone else wants. I just recall seeing it.

[SoCo KungFu]

That WAS a great fight. I forgot all about that one.

That is still probably my favorite fight. It was like a great drama unfolding. Miura nullifying Condit's knees with his Judo half the fight. Then powering out of a triangle and unleashing a punishing G&P. I thought Miura was actually going to pull it off until he got caught on the temple with that one knee when they were both exhausted in the 4th.

Personally I think Miura's conversion of his Judo to MMA is better than Parysian's.

[YungChun]

Excuse me...

But I am using Terence's criteria to evaluate Terence's theory...

Meaning...

That if this is a valid alternative and the "correct" method because it is used consistently in fighting good fighters that there would then be lots of examples of this working against good fighters...............etc.

It's not on you guys but it is on T to validate himself. Otherwise he is in error and must sterilize his own theory and himself for not following his own method of validation---beep! :)

[shawchemical]

Exactly.

What WCK provides is a strategy for attached fighting and some tools for implementing that strategy -- but it is nothing unique. Clinch is clinch.

All well and good, but VTK is NOT clinch fighting.

If you end up in a clinch, you're doing it wrong.

[k gledhill]

Terence, by his own monotonic explanations, is doing it the best he can . He can only make it work by over using arms, iow, he has to predominantly use his 2 arms to control one arm so he can strike...common basic level wck use. And doesnt take a great amount of skill.
Its unrefined and relies on 'over-control' because he has no alternative methods in his repertoire....simple really, he doesnt know any other way.
He doesnt understand any alternative vt ideas, so he dismisses them as 'fantasy-fu' because he is unaware of them...well my fantasy-fu [tm] will certainly drag you out of that well your hiding in so conveniently. ;)

[shawchemical]

Let me explain what I mean by "the method".

When you learn BJJ you don't just learn (1) a bunch of techniques-- more importantly (2) you learn to roll. You learn to roll and the techniques are there to help you roll better, but it is the rolling that is important. And that's why traditional JJJ doesn't produce good fighters -- they have the techniques but they don't learn and practice rolling.

When you learn to box, you don't just learn (1) a bunch of techniques -- more importantly (2) you learn to box. You learn to box and the techniques are there to help you box better, but it is the boxing that is important. If you learned the techniques but not how to box, you'd stink.

In WCK, you don't just learn (1) a bunch of techniques -- more importantly (2) you learn the method (which corresponds to rolling or boxing). You learn the method and the techniques are there to help you implement the method better, but it is the method that is important.

The WCK method is flexible -- just like GNP is flexible. But if you aren't taking the guy to the ground, dominating position, and striking him you aren't doing GNP, you aren't doing its method. And, when you don't do it's method, you find that you end up not using most of the material in the curriculum -- since the material is to help you use the method!

Similarly, WCK's method is to control while striking. If you don't use that method, you will end up not using most of its tools -- because the tools are there to help you use the method.

Nope, you've got it wrong, but that's not surprising.

VTK is a striking method fundamentally. The control is secondary to the striking itself, for there is no need to control someone who is lying unconscious on the ground.
Control is important when your strike makes contact with something preventing it's penetration through its target, but only to allow the next strike to connect. To think of it as control FIRST means that you will only ever end up chasing hands and playing pattycake. Probably a pretty good explanation of why you think it doesn't work at all T. But to think of it as simply controlling first, then hitting is wrong.

[shawchemical]

Terence, by his own monotonic explanations, is doing it the best he can . He can only make it work by over using arms, iow, he has to predominantly use his 2 arms to control one arm so he can strike...common basic level wck use. And doesnt take a great amount of skill.
Its unrefined and relies on 'over-control' because he has no alternative methods in his repertoire....simple really, he doesnt know any other way.
He doesnt understand any alternative vt ideas, so he dismisses them as 'fantasy-fu' because he is unaware of them...well my fantasy-fu [tm] will certainly drag you out of that well your hiding in so conveniently. ;)

Could be, or it could also be that he's heard of the ideas, but severely lacks the ability to implement them effectively. Thus using his logic, if he can't do them they don't work for anyone, and anyone who can do it is simply involved in fantasy land fighting.

I wonder how many concussions it would take him to realise that some people can implement techniques he cannot.

[k gledhill]

I wouldnt waste your time waiting ....:D He is old and set in his ways.

[grasshopper 2.0]

What do you do when the opponent gets your leg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlx3ay8dELQ

is the answer. Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G-occarX0w

I see the point of the post. I just wanted to add a few things:

1) it's not really about the strike. I agree, unless you got one helluva strike, that really won't do much

2) if you watch how william cheung does it vs. the student, there is a significant difference - william cheung disrupts the axis of the "grappler" while the student does not. When the axis isn't disrupted, the "grappler" has more opportunity to go on with the next move.

3) william cheung spreads low and moves to his left...in essence, anticipating the next move, since he already knows what's coming. Kind of not fair nor realistic in that manner.

[CFT]

You've both made some good points without making it overly personal with Terence. Whilst I agree that WCK is designed as a striking system primarily, I think you are dismissing Terence's personal experience far too readily.

If he is training with MMA people, where striking is but one component ... and clinching and groundfighting are valid approaches to stifle your opponents striking game ... then I think it should not come as a surprise that Terence's implementation of WCK has more controlling aspects.

[bennyvt]

yes his way of dealing with it. As thats what he is tryin to do. Get in a clinch. As thats what you pde and his teacher hasn't been able to teach him imy to do good vt so he makes the bad stuff work as well as it can. What about the other people that train with mma guys. Just beatare t says he is the only one doesn't make it so. I understand his thinking. When i an learning from my friend, a shoot fighter. We in from punching to clinch, take downs and ground work. I have found numerous times that what he is showing me is like or can be improved or done in a vt way. Its not vt but. That a leg triangle i was not moving and controling his posture so he would just stand up. He showed me to push the arm across, lock my legs and push the head down, if he stands grab the knee. Trying it i found i could pak sao, slide up in one movement and grab the head. By using my elbow to control the arm i had a free hand so i could keep the arm across, hold down the head and control the leg or punch. This is not vt this is using it to make something better.

[Frost]

yes his way of dealing with it. As thats what he is tryin to do. Get in a clinch. As thats what you pde and his teacher hasn't been able to teach him imy to do good vt so he makes the bad stuff work as well as it can. What about the other people that train with mma guys. Just beatare t says he is the only one doesn't make it so. I understand his thinking. When i an learning from my friend, a shoot fighter. We in from punching to clinch, take downs and ground work. I have found numerous times that what he is showing me is like or can be improved or done in a vt way. Its not vt but. That a leg triangle i was not moving and controling his posture so he would just stand up. He showed me to push the arm across, lock my legs and push the head down, if he stands grab the knee. Trying it i found i could pak sao, slide up in one movement and grab the head. By using my elbow to control the arm i had a free hand so i could keep the arm across, hold down the head and control the leg or punch. This is not vt this is using it to make something better.

there are many ways to hold the opponent and finish him in the triangle, if you hold the head correctly he will not be able to posture up.

can i ask are you training at a well known shootfighting/MMA gym or just training with a friend who is a shootfighter? there is a big difference between the two and that is where T is coming from

[t_niehoff]

Nope, you've got it wrong, but that's not surprising.

VTK is a striking method fundamentally. The control is secondary to the striking itself, for there is no need to control someone who is lying unconscious on the ground.


This is what theoretical nonfighters always do: assume the best case scenario. You apparently think that you will have some defenseless opponent that you will just overwhelm with your fists of granite!

If you can hit him, he can hit you. So what stops him from hitting you? Most likely, he will hit harder than you, maybe faster than you, etc. If you are in range to hit him,he is also in range to grab you, to charge in, etc. But, yes, I know, once again you will end it with one strike from your fists of granite.;)

WCK is supposed to be a smaller person's art, for someone who doesn't want to exchange or trade punches, etc.



Control is important when your strike makes contact with something preventing it's penetration through its target, but only to allow the next strike to connect. To think of it as control FIRST means that you will only ever end up chasing hands and playing pattycake. Probably a pretty good explanation of why you think it doesn't work at all T. But to think of it as simply controlling first, then hitting is wrong.

Are you guys f#cking idiots? I NEVER said WCK doesn't work.

First of all, the WCK method, the faat mun, isn't something I made up. It is a part of the WCK core curriculum. I can't help it if you and some others have never learned it. I can't help if you haven't learned the kuen kuit. I can't help it if you don't know what chi sao is for. Second,I can't help it that you don't understand the difference between chasing hands and chasing control. All this tells me is that your training is incomplete. Go find an instructor that can round out your education.

[t_niehoff]

Terence, by his own monotonic explanations, is doing it the best he can . He can only make it work by over using arms, iow, he has to predominantly use his 2 arms to control one arm so he can strike...common basic level wck use. And doesnt take a great amount of skill.


That's not what I am talking about at all.



Its unrefined and relies on 'over-control' because he has no alternative methods in his repertoire....simple really, he doesnt know any other way.


Sure I do -- I learned WCK pretty much the same way as most of you.

Most people in WCK never learn the faat mun. You don't know it. This isn't something I made up, it is the WCK "battle plan", the organizing principle of the art. It permits you to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I didn't know it either, even after 17 years in WCK. I was fortunate enough to find someone who did know it. But he's not the only one -- various people from various lineages know it.



He doesnt understand any alternative vt ideas, so he dismisses them as 'fantasy-fu' because he is unaware of them...well my fantasy-fu [tm] will certainly drag you out of that well your hiding in so conveniently. ;)

Sure, I understand the "alternate ideas" and (1) they don't correspond to the traditional faat mun and (2) they are either completely unrealistic or overly simplistic.

[k gledhill]

You dont understand all aspects of VT so you assume its all about hitting with fists of granite ....:rolleyes: tsk tsk twitch ! yes we know, .....the faat ! :D

[t_niehoff]

You dont understand all aspects of VT so you assume its all about hitting with fists of granite ....:rolleyes: tsk tsk twitch ! the faat ! :D

Theory (fantasy) is great. Go see how it works at the MMA gym.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, I'm doing it. And because I'm doing it, I see it. If you aren't doing it, you don't see it.

That is exactly what everyone else says too.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Again we get to see the same old problem:
WC IS clinch fighting
WC ISN'T clinch fitting
As if it must be one or the other, as if it can't be both.
Guys, my point is that WC can be whatever you want it to be as long as it freaking works for you.
T's WC is Clinch boxing, great.
Someone else's WC is NOT, and that's ok too.
Stop with the absolutes, you guys sound like a bunch of 3rd world religious zelots.

[bennyvt]

i didn't know other them in america you had shoot fighting schools. No i just train with him, no school. I do train with other guys when i can but with work and kids. Pm if you know about the history of shoot and you might know his teacher who still fights today.

[SAAMAG]

Terence, by his own monotonic explanations, is doing it the best he can . He can only make it work by over using arms, iow, he has to predominantly use his 2 arms to control one arm so he can strike...common basic level wck use. And doesnt take a great amount of skill.
Its unrefined and relies on 'over-control' because he has no alternative methods in his repertoire....simple really, he doesnt know any other way.
He doesnt understand any alternative vt ideas, so he dismisses them as 'fantasy-fu' because he is unaware of them...well my fantasy-fu [tm] will certainly drag you out of that well your hiding in so conveniently. ;)

Honestly Kevin, have you EVER controlled both the arms of an equal or greater skilled person with one only one arm?

I say this because while it is the theory to achieve this, more often than not it's not the reality. I can see using the single arm to block and strike (punch using the bridge to press and strike through an incoming strike), I can see the occasional side trap and strike (meaning use the guys own arm to control the body from the outside gate by pressing), I can see faan sao even where one controls and the other strikes. But to get the full vertical trap and ability to use one arm to hold and one arm to strike is pretty much nil if you're fighting someone of equal or better skill.

If you pull this off constantly, then you need to fight better people. Big fish in small pond only increases teaching skill, not application skill.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Again we get to see the same old problem:
WC IS clinch fighting
WC ISN'T clinch fitting
As if it must be one or the other, as if it can't be both.
Guys, my point is that WC can be whatever you want it to be as long as it freaking works for you.
T's WC is Clinch boxing, great.
Someone else's WC is NOT, and that's ok too.
Stop with the absolutes, you guys sound like a bunch of 3rd world religious zelots.

***I THINK you're giving Niehoff waaaay too much credit here. Just how many other wing chun people besides him think that wing chun is primarily "clinch" fighting?

Or "attached" fighting? Or whatever words we want to use to describe some sort of serious grabbing situation.

The fact that this guy is leading the charge for such a label for wing chun doesn't constitute some sort of "WC IS clinch fighting/WC ISN'T clinch fighting" controversy!

There's no controversy. I'd venture to say that at least 95% of all the wing chun people you'd ever meet or speak to would not characterize wing chun as "attached" or "clinch" fighting - but as a striking system, first and foremost.

It's attached/clinch fighting to Niehoff because his skills at actually making wing chun work in the realm it's meant to be used for (close quarter striking)...are obviously very low level.

[m1k3]

Or maybe T is working with people who are very good a clinching and grappling and he is making it work there. That's what happens when you train outside your comfort zone.

[Knifefighter]

Or maybe T is working with people who are very good a clinching and grappling and he is making it work there. That's what happens when you train outside your comfort zone.

Bingo! Because if you are working with halfway decent grapplers/clinch fighters, that's only one of two places you will be able to make it work... the other one is on the outside range to keep the opponent away.

A decent grappler/clinch fighter won't give you any chance to stay at "WC striking range." You'll either be looking at being tied up in the clinch or being taken down.

[SAAMAG]

Or maybe T is working with people who are very good a clinching and grappling and he is making it work there. That's what happens when you train outside your comfort zone.


Bingo! Because if you are working with halfway decent grapplers/clinch fighters, that's only one of two places you will be able to make it work... the other one is on the outside range to keep the opponent away.

A decent grappler/clinch fighter won't give you any chance to stay at "WC striking range." You'll either be looking at being tied up in the clinch or being taken down.

I'd say that's a fair assessment. What we develop is based on our needs. Just as some boxers are different than others...there's nothing wrong with having wing chun guys applying things differently than others. The problem comes when someone thinks their method is superior or more authentic to another's...which is rampant on this forum. Who'd think that someone would ever open their minds to knew ideas and experiment with those ideas to perhaps better their own understanding of wing chun?!?

So let the bickering continue.

P.S....I've tried the methods described by Robert / Terence / Alan...and they work. So that's why you don't see me arguing the points any longer. It improved my wing chun understanding. I like to think I was able to apply it well previously, but now I simply have a new understanding of how the system CAN be used. When someone comes up with another ideal that is different from how I know things...I'll try that out too in my training and see how it goes. If its sound...than it stays. If not, I've at least increased my understanding of wing chun application.

It's not saying wing chun is a grappling form, on the contrary they talk about hitting quite often, and that its still the goal as a striking art. But when bridging, the main idea is that control comes first, then striking. Much like the whole position before submission idea.

[Knifefighter]

I'd say that's a fair assessment. What we develop is based on our needs. Just as some boxers are different than others...there's nothing wrong with having wing chun guys applying things differently than others. The problem comes when someone thinks their method is superior or more authentic to another's...which is rampant on this forum. Who'd think that someone would ever open their minds to knew ideas and experiment with those ideas to perhaps better their own understanding of wing chun?!?

So let the bickering continue.

The problem is that some people make claims about things that there is no evidence for actually taking place. If someone is making claims about his method being superior, but there is no actual evidence of that, the chances are he's probably just basing his opinion on non-fighting theory.

[SAAMAG]

The problem is that some people make claims about things that there is no evidence for actually taking place. If someone is making claims about his method being superior, but there is no actual evidence of that, the chances are he's probably just basing his opinion on non-fighting theory.

The problem also lies in overbearing tones and elitist attitudes. The delivery method for the message is just as important as the message. Food for thought.

[Knifefighter]

The problem also lies in overbearing tones and elitist attitudes. The delivery method for the message is just as important as the message. Food for thought.

This is true. However, overbearing tones and elitist attitudes = more controversy = more entertainment value.

[SAAMAG]

This is true. However, overbearing tones and elitist attitudes = more controversy = more entertainment value.

huh....good point arsehole! :p

[Ultimatewingchun]

Or maybe T is working with people who are very good a clinching and grappling and he is making it work there. That's what happens when you train outside your comfort zone.

***OR maybe that's a self-serving myth that he's created about himself - a myth that was debunked about 7-10 days ago on another thread...wherein his ideas about what in wing chun (tan sao) would work to get out of a MT plum (LOL)...and his idea that the primary wing chun striking weapon is the elbow (again, LOL)...

wherein his ideas clearly exposed him. I don't know who he's been training with - but if tan sao works to get out of their MT plum - they can't be very good.

Also keep in mind that for all his talk for years now about what he's been doing - to this day he refuses to show even 30 seconds worth of a vid of himself in action.

I smell a lot of bull5hit here, my friend.

[Knifefighter]

***OR maybe that's a self-serving myth that he's created about himself - a myth that was debunked about 7-10 days ago on another thread...wherein his ideas about what in wing chun (tan sao) would work to get out of a MT plum (LOL)...

As we've seen in a variety of threads, lots of WC guys (including you) will push the boundary definitions of what WC "is" in order to make a point that WC techniques are being used in different situations.



and his idea that the primary wing chun striking weapon is the elbow (again, LOL)...

As one gets more advanced, we all come up with new theories about what we think will work better. The theoretical non-fighters never test them out, while the reality based guys do. My thought is this is one he hasn't actually tested out yet.



Also keep in mind that for all his talk for years now about what he's been doing - to this day he refuses to show even 30 seconds worth of a vid of himself in action

This is a good point and I can see your frustration with this. It's the same frustration as when the other 99% of guys who post here claim they can do this and that, but have zero evidence of ever having done anything other than train in their parent's basement.

[Tom Kagan]

The problem also lies in overbearing tones and elitist attitudes. The delivery method for the message is just as important as the message. Food for thought.

The "delivery method" for Kung Fu is to let the hands do the talking. The people of whom you seem to ascribe "overbearing tones and elitist attitudes" also appear to be the ones saying this, too, IMO.

[SAAMAG]

The "delivery method" for Kung Fu is to let the hands do the talking. The people of whom you seem to ascribe "overbearing tones and elitist attitudes" also appear to be the ones saying this, too, IMO.

Really? Then you should tell the rest of the kung fu world that because that's not what's happening...because the few times when they let their hands do the talking--they end up limp-walking. Not to mention that the moral of the story was not the message being incorrect, but the method being a detractor from the message.

And just how do you know who the "people" are that I'm ascribing to? Because I left that open since all of are just about guilty of it at one time or another, myself included. That was an observational comment.

[YungChun]

P.S....I've tried the methods described by Robert / Terence / Alan...and they work. So that's why you don't see me arguing the points any longer. It improved my wing chun understanding.


I haven't seen all of Alan's videos yet but what I have seen from him appears to be Wing Chun... He doesn't stray too far off from what I know as VT and when he does it seems plain that he has simply moved into standard clinch work and/or grappling moves.. He does show how the VT can assist the clinch work but so far I have not seen him call grappling, VT.

I am far from certain that what T is doing is what Alan is doing.. Hard to tell with the veil of secrecy surrounding what T does.

[SAAMAG]

...I am far from certain that what T is doing is what Alan is doing.. Hard to tell with the veil of secrecy surrounding what T does.

Of course, but it matters little. The message is what's important, the ideas of the Chu Sao Lei system aren't meant to be a replacement style, they are something that can be assimilated into any ones training. That's why the ideas work--because the base is something that is universally transparent in any system of fighting.

I'm not going to turn into a nut bagger or anything...but I just appreciate the information for what it is and how it's broadened my WC knowledge.

[m1k3]

Victor,

I can't speak to T.'s use of WC with his MMA training but from what he has described in multiple posts matches with what I have seen and done training at an MMA gym, even though I am only a grappler.

Therefore I have to give him the benefit of the doubt when he describes what he is doing in his BJJ and MMA training.

Mike

BTW this isn't meant to be a dig just my opinion of what I have read in T's posts.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Victor,

I can't speak to T.'s use of WC with his MMA training but from what he has described in multiple posts matches with what I have seen and done training at an MMA gym, even though I am only a grappler.

Therefore I have to give him the benefit of the doubt when he describes what he is doing in his BJJ and MMA training.

Mike

BTW this isn't meant to be a dig just my opinion of what I have read in T's posts.

Would it be possible that, because of your back ground in grappling and your inclination towards man-bonding:D, you tend to view and favour a more "grappling oriented" version of WC?

[m1k3]

Would it be possible that, because of your back ground in grappling and your inclination towards man-bonding:D, you tend to view and favour a more "grappling oriented" version of WC?

I have to agree. Sweaty man hugging is the ideal form of training. Anything less is LARPing. :D

[Frost]

Well let's see all the clips of it if there are so many.....

IMO if you put that on a decent MMA type fighter he is just going to go full clinch and then bang your past the Chun range and in full clinch range, which IMO is not Chun.. At that point you are a hair away from the ground and a tap...or you're going to be grappling.

This is about the idea of Chun STAYING in this range...

what position are you talking about exactly single neck tie or full neck tie? and what in your opinion is the difference between these 2 positions and as you call it the full clinch position? ( i ask because people strike just as much of underhooks, and whi*zers as they do the single neck tie)

If you mean a single neck tie and hitting with the other hand then you see this alot in MMA but its not a finishing move as such and part of a fluid controlling clinch game, its hard to get alot of power in the strike to actually finish someone for a number of reasons:
1) unless you pin them to the fence you don't have enough control over them and they will move
2) holding with one arm and hitting with the other negates alot of force, quite often these fights are finished not in the clinch but from unattached close range punches as either one fight escapes the clinch or gets hurt /warn down from constant attached punches and then starts to eat hooks uppercuts overhands etc
3) they have ther hands free to block and counter punch.

( Note some guys have crazy short range power and can finish from here but they are few and far between)

if you meant the full tie clinch then fights are finished here all the time, silva destroyed Franklin, the cutebox guys all have great clinches etc but as someone pointed out its the knees here that do the real damage.

[sanjuro_ronin]

( Note some guys have crazy short range power and can finish from here but they are few and far between)

Oh, oh..someone may have kicked the crotch of the correct.
When a person creates a style, they tend to focus on what THEY do best and at times, the style BECOMES the creator or at least, the last guy that it was reknown for.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I haven't seen all of Alan's videos yet but what I have seen from him appears to be Wing Chun... He doesn't stray too far off from what I know as VT and when he does it seems plain that he has simply moved into standard clinch work and/or grappling moves.. He does show how the VT can assist the clinch work but so far I have not seen him call grappling, VT.

I am far from certain that what T is doing is what Alan is doing.. Hard to tell with the veil of secrecy surrounding what T does.

***Good points, Jim/YungChun...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Would it be possible that, because of your back ground in grappling and your inclination towards man-bonding:D, you tend to view and favour a more "grappling oriented" version of WC?

***That occurred to me also, although I don't remember the man-bonding part. :) :eek: :cool:

[m1k3]

***That occurred to me also, although I don't remember the man-bonding part. :) :eek: :cool:

C'mon Vic, your a catch wrestler. So, what did you catch on the mat last time?


I was going to use the smilie with the tongue sticking out but that was just wrong. :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ha! ha! ha! :cool:

[bennyvt]

that was my point, using VT to grapple is fine if that is what works best for you. That is not the mainpurpose of VT. It comes down to what I said before, there are certain times when you get in the situation because of your opponent and other times when you are acticly looking to grapple (T's chasing control). But who are these great people that he is working with that "prove" what he "knows" is how it works. Is he just using VT to mimic what he is seeing them do. As I said you can use the idea's of elbow force, short range power etc to help you in that situation But there is also times to just hit. The point is you can do several things not just chase the arm to make a bridge ( when I learnt it any contact is a bridge not just "sustained contact" which I was told you tried not to have).
But lets get one thing clear, this always turns into a VT guys hate grappling. Ilearn grappling and on the grappling I agree with him sometimes and his training ideas are sound. The way he does VT is what is suspect. For someone who says theory is for non fighters, his theory of vt being attached fighting is a interesting idea. His "method" sounds like theory to go with the moves but theory is for non fighters. He says sparing is fighting, fighting isn't fighting and competition is easier then sparing. I don't know about you but I have seen some wars on UFC. I have had massive cuts, fingers in eyes etc when I have had to stop purely as you can't bleed all over the school. I think its slightly different and everyone that has done comps has agreed. He is in a bubble that says he is the only guy that does ground or clinch work so only he knows the true way of using VT.;)

[YungChun]

I can't speak to T.'s use of WC with his MMA training but from what he has described in multiple posts matches with what I have seen and done training at an MMA gym, even though I am only a grappler.

Therefore I have to give him the benefit of the doubt when he describes what he is doing in his BJJ and MMA training.


The benefit of the doubt that what?

He doesn't describe his method in specific terms and only makes vague generalizations..

The point of all of this is really that he says that his interpretation is the "correct" one but then fails to show or specify what that is..

In other words with regards to this particular issue there is nothing to agree with because everything he writes is lost in a nebulous fog.... Then of course he comes back with, "It's only a "nebulous fog" because you aren't training with good people..." "Because if you did you'd know (no doubt via telepathy) what I am talking about.."

Which of course makes no sense at all (if you're not an ego maniac) because it implies that anyone with good experience must come to the same answer as he did, even though this seems to change ever so slightly on a weekly basis..

And on and on and on.. One big boring circle of nonsense.

[goju]

The benefit of the doubt that what?

He doesn't describe his method in specific terms and only makes vague generalizations..

The point of all of this is really that he says that his interpretation is the "correct" one but then fails to show or specify what that is..

In other words with regards to this particular issue there is nothing to agree with because everything he writes is lost in a nebulous fog.... Then of course he comes back with, "It's only a "nebulous fog" because you aren't training with good people..." "Because if you did you'd know (no doubt via telepathy) what I am talking about.."

Which of course makes no sense at all (if you're not an ego maniac) because it implies that anyone with good experience must come to the same answer as he did, even though this seems to change ever so slightly on a weekly basis..

And on and on and on.. One big boring circle of nonsense.

ha! well put!:D:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

The benefit of the doubt that what?

He doesn't describe his method in specific terms and only makes vague generalizations..

The point of all of this is really that he says that his interpretation is the "correct" one but then fails to show or specify what that is..

In other words with regards to this particular issue there is nothing to agree with because everything he writes is lost in a nebulous fog.... Then of course he comes back with, "It's only a "nebulous fog" because you aren't training with good people..." "Because if you did you'd know (no doubt via telepathy) what I am talking about.."

Which of course makes no sense at all (if you're not an ego maniac) because it implies that anyone with good experience must come to the same answer as he did, even though this seems to change ever so slightly on a weekly basis..

And on and on and on.. One big boring circle of nonsense.

***Oh yes, definitely well put!!!

[Wayfaring]

...well my fantasy-fu [tm] will certainly drag you out of that well your hiding in so conveniently. ;)

What level fighters are you training with consistently such that you can make the claim your level of fighting in WCK can do this?

[m1k3]

Ok everyone, let me try this again.

In an earlier post Victor was implying that T doesn't really train MMA.

My response was that the comments T has made over the course of a bunch of posts matches my experiences training at an MMA gym.

No comment about T's WC skills.

I hope that is clear enough for y'all.

[k gledhill]

What level fighters are you training with consistently such that you can make the claim your level of fighting in WCK can do this?

:D
Are you asking me am I fighting fighters who can er really fight ?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ok everyone, let me try this again.

In an earlier post Victor was implying that T doesn't really train MMA.

My response was that the comments T has made over the course of a bunch of posts matches my experiences training at an MMA gym.

No comment about T's WC skills.

I hope that is clear enough for y'all.

***I'M not saying that Niehoff has never done some training with mma guys. What I am saying is that he's never provided any kind of evidence whatsover as to the extent of his training, how often, what kinds of skill levels the guys he's claimed to have been training with are...and what his skill levels are....and needless to say, he's been just as murky about his own wing chun knowledge and skill levels. For example, I think it's pretty clear by now that he never spent more than about maybe 5 or 6 face-to-face training sessions with Robert Chu.

But we do know that several years ago his posts - tons of them - mirrored the thoughts of mma's Matt Thornton almost word-for-word.

Yeah, I smell a lot of B.S. here...

[goju]

yes one can come off knowledgeable about certain topics if they just simply regurgitate whatever is stated my well respected professionals through their books. videos. etc.etc.

[SAAMAG]

For the sake of argument...isn't it possible for two people who train alike to come to the same conclusions?

I don't agree with everything he's said, but some of it is absolutely true. I believe he's right about certain things being only evident to those that train in a specific manner....just as HW108 is right about people talking about internal arts without having at least somewhat of a knowledgeable base.

We may not like the manner in which they speak, but the truth is the truth. The question really is....when someone says something you don't agree with, do you do more research on the subject to either validate or better your own knowledge or do you continue to babble having learned nothing from the conversation?

[goju]

I do not dismiss him because i don't agree with what he says rather i dissmiss him because he routinely contradicts himself and people who contradict themselves are often liars .

The only thing i have learned from him is it is best do more listening and alot less talking when it comes to subject matters you don't understand.

That and it's hard to gather much knowledge from someone whos posts largely consist of petty criticisms of others and little else.

[Tom Kagan]

Really? Then you should tell the rest of the kung fu world that because that's not what's happening...because the few times when they let their hands do the talking--they end up limp-walking.

You are confusing methods with results. The delivery method is Kung Fu (i.e.: "hard work", "let the hands do the talking"). If you want a different result, then the choice of method needs to be examined. However, since you brought it up ...

... it's pretty sad, isn't it? So, what's your point exactly by bringing up "limp walking"?


Not to mention that the moral of the story was not the message being incorrect, but the method being a detractor from the message.

Bunk. Anyone who doesn't know how to read a post for a message instead of manner deserves to have Al Gore revoke their internet card.

Manner is not the problem. It's the reaction with Ad-hominem to some people's manner which is the problem. I suppose it's easier for people to argue a person's message is invalid because the person is rude or doesn't know the secret handshake than it is to argue the message.

[SAAMAG]

You are confusing methods with results. The delivery method is Kung Fu (i.e.: "hard work", "let the hands do the talking"). If you want a different result, then the choice of method needs to be examined. However, since you brought it up ...

... it's pretty sad, isn't it? So, what's your point exactly by bringing up "limp walking"?

Not confusing. Transposing to the way you're perceiving it. A verbal message is a verbal message. A physical one is a physical one. Kung fu doesn't "talk" with its hands--because then you are indeed confusing discussion with action, and the byproduct of the action is results, which cannot be had on an internet forum.



Bunk. Anyone who doesn't know how to read a post for a message instead of manner deserves to have Al Gore revoke their internet card.

Manner is not the problem. It's the reaction with Ad-hominem to some people's manner which is the problem. I suppose it's easier for people to argue a person's message is invalid because the person is rude or doesn't know the secret handshake than it is to argue the message.

No one's saying the message is invalid. I'm saying that the message is harder to see when people are distracted by noise that doesn't need to be there. So then how about this: You get more bees with honey? The ad hominem attacks and defensive nature are a direct result of the original tone of the message. If you think that it's up to the receiver only to maintain a level of homeostasis in the conversation than you're lacking knowledge of communication knowledge and basic human psychology. Because the fact is that people tend to not receive things as openly, and are not as willing to open up when they feel that they have to be defensive about things or the need to defend a position, i.e. feel like they're being attacked.

For productive conversation, a message needs to be as free from noise (arseholiness TM) as possible, and the encoding needs to be such that the receiver (1) understands it as it was intended, (2) that the message promotes further conversation from the receiver, and (3) that the ideas promote inquisitive seeking of the "truth".

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The ad hominem attacks and defensive nature are a direct result of the original tone of the message...a message needs to be as free from noise (arseholiness TM) as possible, and the encoding needs to be such that the receiver (1) understands it as it was intended, (2) that the message promotes further conversation from the receiver, and (3) that the ideas promote inquisitive seeking of the 'truth.' " (Vankuen)

***THIS...

[m1k3]

Oh Nos!!!

Mommy!!! They're treating me mean on the interwebz!


Boohoohoo!


HTFU. :D

[SAAMAG]

Oh Nos!!!

Mommy!!! They're treating me mean on the interwebz!


Boohoohoo!


HTFU. :D

What's HTFU??

[shawchemical]

What's HTFU??

Harden the fu.ck up.

[t_niehoff]

***I'M not saying that Niehoff has never done some training with mma guys. What I am saying is that he's never provided any kind of evidence whatsover as to the extent of his training, how often, what kinds of skill levels the guys he's claimed to have been training with are...and what his skill levels are....and needless to say, he's been just as murky about his own wing chun knowledge and skill levels. For example, I think it's pretty clear by now that he never spent more than about maybe 5 or 6 face-to-face training sessions with Robert Chu.

But we do know that several years ago his posts - tons of them - mirrored the thoughts of mma's Matt Thornton almost word-for-word.

Yeah, I smell a lot of B.S. here...

Yes, these is a lot of bullsh1t -- and most of it comes from YOU. There is mothing "murky" about me. I've listed several times where I train before, I've provided links to their sites.

You already know that I trained in WCK for 17 years before I found Robert, and that I spent around 100 hours of doing hands-on training with Robert (he and I training together), I also visited his LA class, trained with some of his guys (Dave and Dzu), brought him here for a seminar, etc. It was Robert himself who told me that I had completed my training with him, and that I should go train with some good fighters (the same thing he told Alan, Dave, etc.). Robert himself has posted this. While this may not satisfy you -- who has never met or trained with me -- it more than satisfied Robert. Murky?

And it is funny that while you believe my WCK "education" to be incomplete, you have never learned the faat mun,the kuit, you don't seem to know how they are related to the forms, or what chi sao is for. You don't even know WCK is a contact fighting method. Maybe you should do what I did and find someone who can complete your education.

And, Victor, instead of trying to teach yourself poor MMA and poor grappling and poor boxing, just do what I've done and go train with good people in those disciplines at good MMA school. Jeez, you live in a city where you have several world class gyms yet you don't take advantage of any, preferring to learn crappling via video and only roll with your "students." Seriously, dude, how do you have the nerve to criticize anyone and their training when what you do is a joke?

[bennyvt]

wow 100 hours. So about two weeks of a normal and you had completed everything robert knows. So who did he actually finish with. I mean you hear lots of meet this guy and that. Who will actually say that they taught robert the whole system. And that is yous or his version of the method. Again if we don't think like you we must be wrong

[t_niehoff]

The benefit of the doubt that what?

He doesn't describe his method in specific terms and only makes vague generalizations..


How do you describe these things in specific terms -- and terms you probably wouldn't understand?

Use WCK movement, the stuff in the forms and drills, while staying in contact and striking your opponent. That's it.



The point of all of this is really that he says that his interpretation is the "correct" one but then fails to show or specify what that is..


Try and get this through your fat head -- it is not MY interpretation. The faat mun is the method of WCK -- it is not something I made up. It's like the kuit, it comes from our ancestors. If you didn't learn it, then find a teacher who can teach it to you.



In other words with regards to this particular issue there is nothing to agree with because everything he writes is lost in a nebulous fog.... Then of course he comes back with, "It's only a "nebulous fog" because you aren't training with good people..." "Because if you did you'd know (no doubt via telepathy) what I am talking about.."


Imagine trying to talk about chi sao to people who never learned and never practice chi sao -- would that sound nebulous to them? Well, they ask, what specifically do you doin chi sao? I stick while trying to control them while hitting them. How specifically do you do that? Well, I use the WCK movement/actions liek ta, bong, fook to try and break their structure, and then strike them. Yes, yes, but what specific techniques do you use over and over again? I don't use the same things over and over, it depends on what my opponent gives me. And so on. Sound familiar?



Which of course makes no sense at all (if you're not an ego maniac) because it implies that anyone with good experience must come to the same answer as he did, even though this seems to change ever so slightly on a weekly basis..

And on and on and on.. One big boring circle of nonsense.

No, you can find the answers yourself if you do the work. Get some partners, start in contact, and fight, trying to control your opponent while striking him using only WCK movement. Work it out.

[t_niehoff]

wow 100 hours. So about two weeks of a normal and you had completed everything robert knows. So who did he actually finish with. I mean you hear lots of meet this guy and that. Who will actually say that they taught robert the whole system. And that is yous or his version of the method. Again if we don't think like you we must be wrong

Dude, as I said, I already had 17 years in WCK and already knew the forms, dummy, drills, etc. But Robert taught me parts of the curriculum that I was missing: the faat mun, the kuit, how it related to the forms, body structure, etc. These were the pieces of the puzzle I was missing. He rounded out the WCK curriculum for me, and showed me how the pieces of the puzzle came together. That's all anyone can do. The rest --making it functional -- was entirely up to me as only I could do that through my own hard work.

Robert's bio is on his website and in his book. What drew me to him what that he has trained in many different lineages of WCK (Yip Man, YKS, Gu Lao, Pan Nam, Yik Kam, etc.) and in doing so has observed the commonalities across all those lineages, the things in common that make it all WCK. He has also found a way of teaching many of those aspects in a very clear way. In the end, WCK is WCK.

I don't give a rat's ass if you or anyone here agrees with me or not. I am just sharing my views. They may help some people -- probably a very, very few. But I do it because someone did it for me, and I am very glad they did. I wouldn't have found Robert if it weren't for the old WCML and Rene, Hendrik, Andreas, and Robert who were among the very few on that list that expressed a view of WCK that was very different than the same-old crap (that I still hear on this forum today). They got me thinking, got me to realize that I was lacking in what I had learned, and got me to get off my ass and go across the country, sight unseen, to train with Robert.

But I am sure that no one will get you to look outside of your little bubble.

[shawchemical]

Dude, as I said, I already had 17 years in WCK and already knew the forms, dummy, drills, etc. But Robert taught me parts of the curriculum that I was missing: the faat mun, the kuit, how it related to the forms, body structure, etc. These were the pieces of the puzzle I was missing. He rounded out the WCK curriculum for me, and showed me how the pieces of the puzzle came together. That's all anyone can do. The rest --making it functional -- was entirely up to me as only I could do that through my own hard work.

Robert's bio is on his website and in his book. What drew me to him what that he has trained in many different lineages of WCK (Yip Man, YKS, Gu Lao, Pan Nam, Yik Kam, etc.) and in doing so has observed the commonalities across all those lineages, the things in common that make it all WCK. He has also found a way of teaching many of those aspects in a very clear way. In the end, WCK is WCK.

I don't give a rat's ass if you or anyone here agrees with me or not. I am just sharing my views. They may help some people -- probably a very, very few. But I do it because someone did it for me, and I am very glad they did. I wouldn't have found Robert if it weren't for the old WCML and Rene, Hendrik, Andreas, and Robert who were among the very few on that list that expressed a view of WCK that was very different than the same-old crap (that I still hear on this forum today). They got me thinking, got me to realize that I was lacking in what I had learned, and got me to get off my ass and go across the country, sight unseen, to train with Robert.

But I am sure that no one will get you to look outside of your little bubble.

By the sounds of it, you didn't know a thing when you went to him.

If you went there already knowing everything, why did you bother in the first place.

Your views only help people to understand that you're a loony old man with few friends IRL. Sorry, I was a little hasty there, they also cement in the minds of others that you are wholly without knowledge in combat systems and their application.

[YungChun]

How do you describe these things in specific terms -- and terms you probably wouldn't understand?

Right, because you are doing something that no one else here apparently is doing (according to you), despite that you also claim we can plainly see what works by watching good fighters and, even though we do wing chun we still won't know what you're talking about if you went into details... Right got that. I'm calling Bull$hit on you..



Use WCK movement, the stuff in the forms and drills, while staying in contact and striking your opponent. That's it.

Fine you want to generalize, then everyone is already doing that.... Check please.



Try and get this through your fat head -- it is not MY interpretation.

Try and get this trough your plainly fatter head:

You claim that no one else is doing it right..

You claim you ARE doing it right..

Robert says your view of the art is extreme..

Yet you claim there is nothing "Terence" about the interpretation..

You are in direct contradiction of yourself. You know that your interpretation is unusual, you've said so in the past... So, you are FOS.

You just offer up the same old I follow the kuit BS.. So do many others..

Yet you say, no, no, no that's all wrong.. Then follow it up with I just follow the kuit..

Fine, so do many of us.. and there is no evidence that your way (whatever that is) is the right way..

No evidence that your way is superior and getting superior results..

There is no evidence of what you do... What you do is a myth.. Show it or STFU.

But you can't show it, even though it would be so easy to do.. You just come up with excuses.. Why? Because you realize that showing what you do would not help your message because what you do doesn't work very well and most likely would never be accepted as Wing Chun...



The faat mun is the method of WCK -- it is not something I made up. It's like the kuit, it comes from our ancestors.

Many others follow the kuit.. No you didn't make up the faat you just made up, (and keep making up) your interpretation of it.

IMO your interpretation is different than Alan's.. Yet you can't show it or explain it.. That's on you... It's like you're trying to convert people to your church but won't give them directions.. "You'll have to find it yourself.."... Kind of nutty actually.

Yet there are no clear examples of this (T's Chun) being used in fighting... Moreover, there is no preponderance of evidence that your interpretation has produced better results.

You claim you follow the kuit, great, anyone can claim anything, it means nothing...
There is no evidence that what you do is Wing Chun, no evidence that what you do even works, and no evidence that you actually do anything related to the art (except post profusely), none at all..

[goju]

And, Victor, instead of trying to teach yourself poor MMA and poor grappling and poor boxing, just do what I've done and go train with good people in those disciplines at good MMA school. Jeez, you live in a city where you have several world class gyms yet you don't take advantage of any, preferring to learn crappling via video and only roll with your "students." Seriously, dude, how do you have the nerve to criticize anyone and their training when what you do is a joke?


Yeah victor you train with the best so you end up not very good! dont you know that! lol

[SAAMAG]

Harden the fu.ck up.

AH! Thanks Shaw. I don't follow all of the internet slang.

But quite frankly he can STFU. The conversation exists because certain people want their messages heard but can't figure out why they're getting so much flak. Well...what I originally mentioned to Dale, and subsequently expounded upon to Tom is the reason why. That's all there is to it.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program.

[t_niehoff]

Right, because you are doing something that no one else here apparently is doing (according to you), despite that you also claim we can plainly see what works by watching good fighters and, even though we do wing chun we still won't know what you're talking about if you went into details... Right got that. I'm calling Bull$hit on you..


Call whatever you like! LOL! But are you doing regular contact fighting? Yes or no? Because if you aren't, then I am doing something you apparently aren't. And that's my point. Until you start doing it, you can't understand.



Fine you want to generalize, then everyone is already doing that.... Check please.


No, they're not. Generally you get two groups, the caveman WCK group (front kick and chain punching) -- which is, I agree, using WCK movement, just at a very low level -- and the kickboxers who use mostly nonWCK movement with an occasional WCK movement thrown in (so very JKD).



Try and get this trough your plainly fatter head:

You claim that no one else is doing it right..

You claim you ARE doing it right..

Robert says your view of the art is extreme..


No, Robert says the way I go about training is "extreme". And as I told him, among fighters it isn't extreme, but among nonfighters it is!

I am not saying I am doing WCK "right". The very notion that there is some objectively "right way" is silly -- like boxing or BJJ or etc., how you make it work is individual (only rioht for you).

But what I am saying is that there is classically a method (faat mun) or approach to fighting that is WCK. This comes from our ancestors. I am not the only one who does it. It is across lineages. But not everyone has learned it, just like not everyone has learned the kuit or the knives.



Yet you claim there is nothing "Terence" about the interpretation..


There is no such thing as "interpretation" -- that is more theoretical nonsense. Yes, I have my individual game. Everyone does. Look, it is like saying WCK is a ground-n-pound art (analogy) -- there are all kinds of ways to play GNP, some may be happy to stay in guard and pound away, others may prefer half-guard, still others may want to pass the guard and get mount before hammering away, etc. Some may favor elbows, others punches, still others knees. But, it is all GNP, the basic strategic approach is the same generally).

WCK has a basic strategic approach. I didn't invent it. It's even in Rene's book for Christ's sake. Robert, Rene, etc. talked about it back in '97 on the WCML. It's in Gu Lao, in YKS,in YM, etc. It is the organizing principle for everything in WCK, the forms are organized around it, the drills are organized around it, the kuit fleshes it out, etc. It's the tie that binds all the elements of the art, it puts the pieces to the puzzle together.

Now instead of saying to yourself -- as I did when I encountered it -- gee, this is something I never learned in my WCK education, and then looking into it further, you put your head in the sand.



You are in direct contradiction of yourself. You know that your interpretation is unusual, you've said so in the past... So, you are FOS.

You just offer up the same old I follow the kuit BS.. So do many others..

Yet you say, no, no, no that's all wrong.. Then follow it up with I just follow the kuit..

Fine, so do many of us.. and there is no evidence that your way (whatever that is) is the right way..

No evidence that your way is superior and getting superior results..

There is no evidence of what you do... What you do is a myth.. Show it or STFU.

But you can't show it, even though it would be so easy to do.. You just come up with excuses.. Why? Because you realize that showing what you do would not help your message because what you do doesn't work very well and most likely would never be accepted as Wing Chun...


I'm not here to do the work for you. I'm not going to show you. Do the work yourself. If you don't want to do the work, then don't. And you'll stay in the same place you are, forever doing the same old crap. You can only lead a horse to water . . .

I've gotten private messages from some (few) people who have done as I have suggested, and looked into it for themselves. I don't expect many to it.



Many others follow the kuit.. No you didn't make up the faat you just made up, (and keep making up) your interpretation of it.


OK, tell my what daap (ride/join) is the first of the faat mun. Because WCK is a noncontact art?

Tell me why our kuit says if there is no bridge, create one. Why it tells us if our hand goes out it does not return? Because WCK is a noncontact art?

How we join, how we create a bridge is up to us, and our opponent -- that is where our personal game comes in, but the strategy is the same.



IMO your interpretation is different than Alan's.. Yet you can't show it or explain it.. That's on you... It's like you're trying to convert people to your church but won't give them directions.. "You'll have to find it yourself.."... Kind of nutty actually.


It's "nutty" because you lack the experience to understand, and then when I tell you to earn the experience you won't!



Yet there are no clear examples of this (T's Chun) being used in fighting... Moreover, there is no preponderance of evidence that your interpretation has produced better results.

You claim you follow the kuit, great, anyone can claim anything, it means nothing...
There is no evidence that what you do is Wing Chun, no evidence that what you do even works, and no evidence that you actually do anything related to the art (except post profusely), none at all..

So what? Where is the evidence that what you do works? Or anyone's? Where is the evidence Cheung can make what he teaches work, or Leung Ting, or Moy Yat or anyone else?

If you REALLY want to see what we do here, visit us. As the old saying goes, if you want to know if the water is warm, you must taste it yourself. But, I don't owe you anything.

[m1k3]

AH! Thanks Shaw. I don't follow all of the internet slang.

But quite frankly he can STFU. The conversation exists because certain people want their messages heard but can't figure out why they're getting so much flak. Well...what I originally mentioned to Dale, and subsequently expounded upon to Tom is the reason why. That's all there is to it.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program.

Van,

If T. is a major source of irritation when posting don't respond. At bullshido one of the basic rules is:

Don't feed the trolls.

If you ignore them then the post count will decrease.
The more you respond the more they respond to your responses.

When a bunch of you respond to one of his posts then he responds to every post posted in response and soon the thread is trashed.

[Dragonzbane76]

Man I thought the KF system I came up through had a lot of politics and b!tching but you WC guys take the cake. :)

[JPinAZ]

Imagine trying to talk about chi sao to people who never learned and never practice chi sao -- would that sound nebulous to them? Well, they ask, what specifically do you doin chi sao? I stick while trying to control them while hitting them. How specifically do you do that? Well, I use the WCK movement/actions liek ta, bong, fook to try and break their structure, and then strike them. Yes, yes, but what specific techniques do you use over and over again? I don't use the same things over and over, it depends on what my opponent gives me. And so on. Sound familiar?


Yeah, imagine that.. We've heard you talk about it, it was quite eye opening (please see my sig.)


And it is funny that while you believe my WCK "education" to be incomplete, you have never learned the faat mun,the kuit, you don't seem to know how they are related to the forms, or what chi sao is for. You don't even know WCK is a contact fighting method. Maybe you should do what I did and find someone who can complete your education.

Here you are yet again implying you know the correct WCK while again, someone else doesn't...
Haha, and here you go again talking like you know all there is to know about what chi sau is ..... again. please reread the link in my sig for further verification of you superiour understanding. :rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

If only more people would just put this guy on their IGNORE LIST.

[m1k3]

If only more people would put this guy on their IGNORE LIST.

If you feed the troll you can't complain about the troll sh1t.

[t_niehoff]

Yeah, imagine that.. We've heard you talk about it, it was quite eye opening (please see my sig.)


I guess your memory is short -- remember my post where I showed that everything I said was consistent?

It's one thing not to be very bright-- I'll forgive you for that. But you are also intellectually dishonest.

BTW, guys who do sigs to try to ridicule someone only demonstrate their immaturity.



Here you are yet again implying you know the correct WCK while again, someone else doesn't...
Haha, and here you go again talking like you know all there is to know about what chi sau is ..... again. please reread the link in my sig for further verification of you superiour understanding. :rolleyes:

WCK is WCK. Is the dummy a part of the WCK curriculum? If you didn't learn it would that change that FACT? The kuit is a part of WCK curriculum. If you didn't learn it would that change that FACT? The faat mun is a part of the WCK curriculum too.

This has nothing to do with being "superior" or not. When I first joined the WCML, I had 17 years of training in WCK but hadn't learned but a few kuit, I hadn't learned the faat mun, etc. and when I heard Rene, Andreas, Hendrik, Robert, etc. talking about these things, and how they were a part of WCK, I didn't take the position of who-are-these-guys-to-suggest-that-I-don't-know-everything but I made an effort to learn them.

[SAAMAG]

Van,

If T. is a major source of irritation when posting don't respond. At bullshido one of the basic rules is:

Don't feed the trolls.

If you ignore them then the post count will decrease.
The more you respond the more they respond to your responses.

When a bunch of you respond to one of his posts then he responds to every post posted in response and soon the thread is trashed.

I'm not bothered in the least, just letting people know why things are the way they are.

[m1k3]

I'm not bothered in the least, just letting people know why things are the way they are.

I agree with a lot of what T's says but lord does he go on.

I do enjoy the indignation and angst he generates though.

[Tom Kagan]

Oh Nos!!!

Mommy!!! They're treating me mean on the interwebz!


Boohoohoo!


HTFU. :D


Exactly.

This is martial arts. Vankuen seems to want tea with the queen.


... also, LOL @ thinking he can seek some sort of "truth" about this style on the internet.

[chusauli]

My only criticism of Terence and why I call him "extreme" is that he's brutally honest and not very diplomatic. Kind of like Simon Cowell of "American Idol".

And also, because of his age, that is "extreme", too. - He's willing to go out and test out his art. But that is how a fighter is supposed to do it.

As far as sticking to the "Faat Mun" of the system, that is what all WCK people should do to prove their art.

And please, don't criticize 100 hands-on-hours in private training with me. Its more than enough to teach a person who has 17 plus years of training, who already learned all the forms, exercises and the like. Also, if you went to a seminar, you would only get a few minutes of training with a "big name", even if you went for 30 years, it would not equal 100 private hours with me, which is customized to work on your strengths and weaknesses.

[JPinAZ]

My only criticism of Terence and why I call him "extreme" is that he's brutally honest and not very diplomatic. Kind of like Simon Cowell of "American Idol".

I hear where you're coming from regarding not being diplomatic, but you're not comparing apples to apples. Simon Cowell is an expert in his field, who's made millions based on that fact. So, he can skip right to the point. Are you saying T is at that level?


And also, because of his age, that is "extreme", too. - He's willing to go out and test out his art. But that is how a fighter is supposed to do it.

Fair enough, but he's not the only one. Testing your art should be priority number one for any MA's who's interested in developing any real skill. But he doesn't have to repeat himself 100's of times to get the point across.


And please, don't criticize 100 hands-on-hours in private training with me. Its more than enough to teach a person who has 17 plus years of training, who already learned all the forms, exercises and the like. Also, if you went to a seminar, you would only get a few minutes of training with a "big name", even if you went for 30 years, it would not equal 100 private hours with me, which is customized to work on your strengths and weaknesses.

I don't think anyone is comparing what one would get out of a 'general' public seminar to what one would get from private lessons. That's just silly. It's sad that T didn't have much after 17 years of training. He's lucky you were able to clean up that mess in just 100 hours ;)

FWIW, the last 'public workshop' I went too started at 9 AM and continued until 2AM the next morning for both instructors and general students. That's 17 hours with only a few breaks for meals - All hands-on with the 'big name' giving the workshop!
So maybe, before you pull out your brush and start making rediculous broad strokes, know your facts. It's ignorant to compare what equals what without having been there regarding what one gets our of your private training vs what one gets out of other's public seminars. You might be suprised the amount of 'secrets' that aren't really secrets and the amount of info shared at some of those seminars ;)

[SAAMAG]

Exactly.

This is martial arts. Vankuen seems to want tea with the queen.


... also, LOL @ thinking he can seek some sort of "truth" about this style on the internet.

Tom stop being a jack@ss. It wasn't a rant by me in any way, shape, or form. I mentioned to Dale that the form of the message plays and role in the responses that he receives. That's all there was to it until you decided to chime in, whereby I simply elaborated on the message since you didn't get not only that but the context of the conversation either.

The idea isn't to find some magical epiphany about a style over the internet but rather was mentioned as a more general idea about "arguments" (the greek version) in general.

[anerlich]

And also, because of his age, that is "extreme", too.

Rubbish. He's hardly the only 50+ guy on this forum, let alone anywhere else, who tests it out regularly.

He's not extreme or unique in anything he's done, except coprolalia.


even if you went for 30 years, it would not equal 100 private hours with me, which is customized to work on your strengths and weaknesses

Sounds like someone else besides T has a disproportionate sense of his abilities and status in the WC universe.

[Wayfaring]

And please, don't criticize 100 hands-on-hours in private training with me. Its more than enough to teach a person who has 17 plus years of training, who already learned all the forms, exercises and the like.

Don't take this personally, but what exactly is it about 100 hours with you that places a person's skill level above criticism?

[chusauli]

Rubbish. He's hardly the only 50+ guy on this forum, let alone anywhere else, who tests it out regularly.

He's not extreme or unique in anything he's done, except coprolalia.



Sounds like someone else besides T has a disproportionate sense of his abilities and status in the WC universe.

Forget about the delusions of fantasy, ego BS, delusions of grandeur, or otherwise. Let's say I just know my stuff and can teach it well.

Just imagine this scenario:

Let's say you went to a 2 day seminar for 8 hours per day. You have 16 hours of training - how many hours of hands on training will you get with the instructor if there are 50 other participants there?

Mathematically, it would be 16 hours divided by fifty, or 960 minutes/50 = 19.2 minuites of hands on with the seminar instructor. You attend the annual seminar for 30 years - 19.2 minutes X 30 years = 576 minutes. 576/60 = 9.6 hours.

Which is more: 100 hours hands on or 9.6 hours?

This is all I am saying.

Peace,

[anerlich]

Which is more: 100 hours hands on or 9.6 hours?

This is all I am saying.

I think I misconstrued your earlier statement. I agree that 100 hours of privates in a short period would beat group seminar attendance once a year for 30 years.

You seemed to feel a need to preemptively defend the 100 hours, which perhaps indicates that you too feel this might not be the optimal way to go about things.

In my experience regular group class attendance boosted with regular private lessons is the ideal learning scenario.

I feel your reputation (good, but not praeternaturally so) as a teacher and scholar of WC is deserved, however I am sceptical of the notion that you, T and Alan Orr have tapped into some hidden vein of WC gold that everyone else has somehow missed.

[chusauli]

I think I misconstrued your earlier statement. I agree that 100 hours of privates in a short period would beat group seminar attendance once a year for 30 years.

You seemed to feel a need to preemptively defend the 100 hours, which perhaps indicates that you too feel this might not be the optimal way to go about things.

In my experience regular group class attendance boosted with regular private lessons is the ideal learning scenario.

I feel your reputation (good, but not praeternaturally so) as a teacher and scholar of WC is deserved, however I am sceptical of the notion that you, T and Alan Orr have tapped into some hidden vein of WC gold that everyone else has somehow missed.


Andrew,

I am not the only one who teaches this method. It is the way WCK from Yip Man was taught to others like Wong Shun Leung, Allen Lee, Duncan Leung, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and Tsui Sheung Tien, just that they have their own teaching methodology.

It is a very sticking close bridge WCK, with emphasis on body mechanics. There are no secrets. If you can do it, then you have it. Its not a lot of shifting or stepping, but a lot of hip action. It is very different than TWC. And there's not a lot of slant body like Leung Ting's method. It was different for me to learn - what I learned before had no such emphasis.

WCK is WCK. WCK has a core set of mechanics which is not shoulder derived.

[goju]

sooooooooo. how about them chicago bulls!?:D

[Hardwork108]

Van,

If T. is a major source of irritation when posting don't respond. At bullshido one of the basic rules is:

Don't feed the trolls.

If you ignore them then the post count will decrease.
The more you respond the more they respond to your responses.

When a bunch of you respond to one of his posts then he responds to every post posted in response and soon the thread is trashed.

Last time I looked, Bullshido itself was run by clueless trolls!!!

[shawchemical]

My only criticism of Terence and why I call him "extreme" is that he's brutally honest and not very diplomatic. Kind of like Simon Cowell of "American Idol".

And also, because of his age, that is "extreme", too. - He's willing to go out and test out his art. But that is how a fighter is supposed to do it.

As far as sticking to the "Faat Mun" of the system, that is what all WCK people should do to prove their art.

And please, don't criticize 100 hands-on-hours in private training with me. Its more than enough to teach a person who has 17 plus years of training, who already learned all the forms, exercises and the like. Also, if you went to a seminar, you would only get a few minutes of training with a "big name", even if you went for 30 years, it would not equal 100 private hours with me, which is customized to work on your strengths and weaknesses.

Actually, someone who has learned more somewhere else may take significantly longer to train correctly.

Ingrained poor habits are often the hardest to breakdown, and only then can the building up start.

[anerlich]

I am not the only one who teaches this method. It is the way WCK from Yip Man was taught to others like Wong Shun Leung, Allen Lee, Duncan Leung, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and Tsui Sheung Tien, just that they have their own teaching methodology.

It is a very sticking close bridge WCK, with emphasis on body mechanics. There are no secrets. If you can do it, then you have it. Its not a lot of shifting or stepping, but a lot of hip action. It is very different than TWC. And there's not a lot of slant body like Leung Ting's method. It was different for me to learn - what I learned before had no such emphasis.

WCK is WCK. WCK has a core set of mechanics which is not shoulder derived.

That then reinforces my opinion that you and T don't have something unique. And thus if he could desist from boring us all to death trying to imply the opposite, that would be good.

Different from TWC? I guess that could mean it's superior. Or maybe inferior. Impossible for you, me or T to say, I suggest.

Most MA systems have an emphasis on body mechanics, and many on the hips. A few maybe take it beyond the point of usefullness.