Erik Paulson, wing chun, and the clinch

[Ultimatewingchun]

Since there was so much misinformation about possible uses of wing chun in a clinch situation being pedaled recently on another thread...

I thought this vid might be very helpful for those wing chun folks who might want to see how a former top shelf mma fighter...

and one who has spent time training in wing chun - as part of his long and very impressive resume of cross training in various martial arts...

might use some wing chun as entry into a clinch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WeCwDDoRd0&feature=related

(The wing chun/clinch segment begins about 45 seconds into the vid - and be sure to watch to the very end, as he has some interesting things to say about chi sao.)

[SAAMAG]

Thanks for the vid Victor! Eric P. is indeed a great resource for knowledge!

[Ultimatewingchun]

After all the dozens of pages and hundreds of posts talking about nonsense - concerning the uses or non-uses of wing chun in the clinch...

such as defending against the MT plum neck tie w/knee strikes....and all the bogus claims about how to use tan sao as a defense vs. the MT plum...

and all we heard about the proper use of MT plum...and how this or that way to defend is high percentage, low percentage, bogus percentage...

and how wing chun as "attached" fighting (which presumably means fighting in some sort of clinch) suggests that the primary wing chun weapon is elbow strikes....

and how that was debunked...and so on...

and exactly one person has replied to what a really high level former mma fighter has to say (and show) about clinch fighting...

wherein he talks of (and shows) uses of the wing chun pak sao, bil sao, huen sao, and fuk sao - and possible uses of chi sao training in mma fighting...

ONE PERSON !!!??? :eek:






Jeez...maybe it's time to take up golf. :cool:

[goju]

Well being that eric is who he is no one here could say he doesnt know what he is doing, he should do this way, he is a liar, blah blah blah.

The wc forum has become more of a chest beating contest for old men and in this case they cant do it with some one of paulsons caliber. :rolleyes::D

[lkfmdc]

Most people have invested in a dream in one sense or another

Having trained with Erik a few times, I can dig what he says, I can dig the message. He has wing chun things in what he does, he has stuff from everywhere. he is invested in being better, being effective, not in upholding a style or tradition

Some don't dig that he isn't "traditional". others can't dig that he does stuff that IS "traditional", mist just don't get it, period

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well that's a very interesting point, goju.

Guys don't want to criticize because it's Erik Paulson.

But what about those who might think that Erik is really onto something in that vid? I can tell you that I believe he is, and that I've saved that youtube link in a folder on my computer for further study. What a great way to "bridge" from wing chun blocks and parries into some clinch fighting and possibly takedowns...was my first impression upon seeing that vid.

And was waiting for people to say similar things - and then perhaps a discussion of some of the details that Paulson goes into.

Hummm...

[Ultimatewingchun]

And you're right, Dave Ross...

Erik Paulson is such a remarkable cross-trainer (the guy is like an friggin' martial arts encyclopedia)...that maybe some people are put off (read that as jealousy)...by his knowledge and fighting skills.

What I find most remarkable about him is that he just flows seamlessly from one art to the next without skipping a beat - like a true Master.

It seems to be all second nature to him by now.

[SAAMAG]

After all the dozens of pages and hundreds of posts talking about nonsense - concerning the uses or non-uses of wing chun in the clinch...

such as defending against the MT plum neck tie w/knee strikes....and all the bogus claims about how to use tan sao as a defense vs. the MT plum...

and all we heard about the proper use of MT plum...and how this or that way to defend is high percentage, low percentage, bogus percentage...

and how wing chun is "attached" fighting (which presumably means fighting in some sort of clinch) suggests that the primary wing chun weapon is elbow strikes....

and how that was debunked...and so on...

and exactly one person has replied to what a really high level former mma fighter has to say (and show) about clinch fighting...

wherein he talks of (and shows) uses of the wing chun pak sao, bil sao, and fuk sao - and possible uses of chi sao training in mma fighting...

ONE PERSON !!!??? :eek:






Jeez...maybe it's time to take up golf. :cool:

Well to be fair Vic, that video doesn't disprove anything of the past conversations...it only provides light into how another individual has used wing chun in the totality of fighting.

[Knifefighter]

LOL... Eric is demonstrating exactly what I've been saying here forever. Chi sao, when done realistically, is going to be no different than clinch fighting. Watch that clip without the sound and you would never know when he was talking about chi sao, fuk sao, or any of the rest.

Compare what you saw in that clip with what you see 99% of WC people doing when they are doing chi sao and they look completely different.

Notice how you didn't see one of those slappy little backfists to the face, throat, and trunk area that you see all over the place when you see two guys doing chi sao.

If anything, what Eric showed there supports T's assertions about attached fighting.

[lkfmdc]

I think the real question is, do you see "wing chun" in there? If Victor says, "yes, there is wing chun in there" then well, great! Teh applicable stuff of the system, stripped of the "fluff" can be intergrated into an applicable collection.

What to me is disturbing is how many people on here will scream "that is NOT wing chun" and/or "NONE of that is wing chun" and be PROUD of that fact!

[Knifefighter]

Also notice the "structure" when someone is working that range where there are tie ups and the possibility of being taken down... no pelvis tilting, no keeping the head up, no hip pumping, no pigeon toes, etc.

The structure you see there is what you need to be effective.

[SAAMAG]

LOL... Eric is demonstrating exactly what I've been saying here forever. Chi sao, when done realistically, is going to be no different than clinch fighting. Watch that clip without the sound and you would never know when he was talking about chi sao.

Compare what you saw in that clip with what you see 99% of WC people doing when they are doing chi sao and they look completely different.

Notice how you didn't see one of those slappy little backfists to the face, throat, and trunk area that you see all over the place when you see two guys doing chi sao.

If anything, what Eric showed there supports T's assertions about attached fighting.

From what I saw, Eric was using wing chun teachings to give the wing chun students he was doing the seminar for a way to bridge the information from how they know things to how Eric knows things.

"This is like your chi sao, or like your biu sao"...etc. Technically he used a huen sao too but didn't call it that. So what?

Regardless of who he is, grabbing someones biceps to crowd them...is not chi sao...because chi sao isn't fighting. It's a drill to teach someone how to deal with subtle energy using wing chun. You wont be doing your fighting in any way like you would do chi sao.

[lkfmdc]

Also notice the "structure" when someone is working that range where there are tie ups and the possibility of being taken down... no pelvis tilting, no keeping the head up, no hip pumping, no pigeon toes, etc.

The structure you see there is what you need to be effective.

in my experience and opinion, an obvious feature of TCMA which contrubutes negatively to it's functionality is an obsession with attempting to both capture fluid movement in static posture AND to "stylize" it. It results in ridiculous posturing (pun intended) and later made up "rules" to explain/rationalize stuff that was never quite true to begin with

[Knifefighter]

Regardless of who he is, grabbing someones biceps to crowd them...is not chi sao...because chi sao isn't fighting. It's a drill to teach someone how to deal with subtle energy using wing chun. You wont be doing your fighting in any way like you would do chi sao.

What Eric is doing is what chi sao would look like if it were trained to be a tool for fighting. Training chi sao in a manner that is completely different than how it will be used for fighting is exactly what makes it such a poor training method.

[SAAMAG]

What Eric is doing is what chi sao would look like if it were trained to be a tool for fighting. Training chi sao in a manner that is completely different than how it will be used for fighting is exactly what makes it such a poor training method.

I understand what you're getting at, but not all drills (where the intent is to build an attribute) are going to look like fighting. Because they're not fighting drills they're attribute building drills.

I could call a fork a spoon all day long but it doesn't make it one.

[lkfmdc]

The closer a drill is to how it is actually used in practice, the better that drill is

Don't remember a simple thread were the basic question was asked "why couldn't wing chun be done more like it is used in real fighting"?

Man, that turned into a crap storm in like 3 posts, and sh-it poured from the sky, cats and dogs lived together, real fire and brimestone sort of stuff, biblical!

[Knifefighter]

I understand what you're getting at, but not all drills (where the intent is to build an attribute) are going to look like fighting. Because they're not fighting drills they're attribute building drills.

LOL... and what attribute is being trained with those slappy little backfist thingees that everyone throws out all over the place when doing chi sao

[SAAMAG]

LOL... and what attribute is being trained with those slappy little backfist thingees that everyone throws out all over the place when doing chi sao

You can practice chi sao without doing any slappy backhand thingies. In fact I never use backfists as power shots. The chops you see are rarely done with any support and should be done moreso with the whole arm.

If it doesn't provide enough power to do damage enough to dissuade the person from staying where they're at then it's useless. I dropped backfists as a power move a long time ago. It's in the same tool box now as my jab.

[Ultimatewingchun]

LOL... Eric is demonstrating exactly what I've been saying here forever. Chi sao, when done realistically, is going to be no different than clinch fighting. Watch that clip without the sound and you would never know when he was talking about chi sao.

Compare what you saw in that clip with what you see 99% of WC people doing when they are doing chi sao and they look completely different.

Notice how you didn't see one of those slappy little backfists to the face, throat, and trunk area that you see all over the place when you see two guys doing chi sao.

If anything, what Eric showed there supports T's assertions about attached fighting.

***This is just pure rubbish. You, yourself destroyed Niehoff's assertions about using wing chun during "attached" mode (ie.- his amateur hour statements about using tan sao to get out of a MT plum - and his totally clueless claim that elbow strikes are wing chun's primary weapon)...

and now you say that he knows what he's talking about?! Rubbish.

You see, Dale, your lack of wing chun knowledge at anything more than a rudimentary level becomes more and more apparent with each of your posts.

When Erik Paulson shows the wider width of the rolling motion - he rightly puts his finger on the fact that at that distance away from the opponent - if you're not going to strike - then you have to account for the opponent's ability to come around your arms/elbows when they're held close to your centerline and ribs...

by widening the horizontal distance (expanding the width) between your arms...

so for example, in long arm chi sao, when the arms are further extended because you're further away from the opponent - you would look very similar to what Erik does when he...................
starts to come in for the double bicep ties and refers to them as use of the wing chun fuk sao and the chi sao rolling motion.

Furthermore, the fact that Erik only works in this vid with going from some wing chun blocks, parries, and redirects (pak, bil, huen) to clinch, and some chi sao rolling motion to a fuk sao-like bicep tie...

and didn't include punching, palm strikes, and some use of block-and-strike...

doesn't mean that these aspects of wing chun can't be done against a skilled, resisting opponent. It simply means that he chose not to deal with any of that.

His focus in this vid was on something else.

Do you recall any posts of mine from previous threads (say about a year or two ago) wherein I wrote about punching at the opponent's shoulder lines?

Now compare that idea with Erik's idea (and what he actually demos) about using his left arm to bridge into his opponent's right arm/shoulder/bicep area...and his right arm doing the same against the opponent's left...

and see how this squares with the wing chun concepts about virtually always using two arms at the same time - as in some version of simultaneous (or near simultaneous) attack and defense.

Think about it.

And btw, Dale, you're right about the hip pumping and pidgeon-toed stances - as they have no place in what Erik is getting at on that vid.

[shawchemical]

Also notice the "structure" when someone is working that range where there are tie ups and the possibility of being taken down... no pelvis tilting, no keeping the head up, no hip pumping, no pigeon toes, etc.

The structure you see there is what you need to be effective.

You're an utter moron.

totally clueless.

[Frost]

After all the dozens of pages and hundreds of posts talking about nonsense - concerning the uses or non-uses of wing chun in the clinch...

such as defending against the MT plum neck tie w/knee strikes....and all the bogus claims about how to use tan sao as a defense vs. the MT plum...

and all we heard about the proper use of MT plum...and how this or that way to defend is high percentage, low percentage, bogus percentage...

and how wing chun as "attached" fighting (which presumably means fighting in some sort of clinch) suggests that the primary wing chun weapon is elbow strikes....

and how that was debunked...and so on...

and exactly one person has replied to what a really high level former mma fighter has to say (and show) about clinch fighting...

wherein he talks of (and shows) uses of the wing chun pak sao, bil sao, huen sao, and fuk sao - and possible uses of chi sao training in mma fighting...

ONE PERSON !!!??? :eek:






Jeez...maybe it's time to take up golf. :cool:

Well I was not replying because I really didn't see anything to reply about. It looked to me like he was tailoring his training to his audience, he was trying to explain the clinch in terms a wing chun audience would understand. I saw the usual things I have seen MMA coaches teach I didn't really see anything wingchun like to be honest, but as Mr Ross said it really is in the eye of the beholder I saw basic grappling being explained to a non grappling audience

[YungChun]

LOL... and what attribute is being trained with those slappy little backfist thingees that everyone throws out all over the place when doing chi sao

The Chop is not supposed to be a major part of ChiSao.. The actual technical place for the Chop is as FanSao.. Relying on the chopping and other "cheats" ends up making for poor ChiSao, which will translate even less to application.

The techniques in ChiSao are the techniques of VT.. Some of them are not going to be used at all or often in a given fight because which techniques are used is dependent on the conditions (energy/position) during an encounter.

There are also a myriad of other things learned in good ChiSao, kinesthetic awareness, balance manipulation, power/energy management and generating power, how to release it, core VT tactics, like following, facing, the core of what is in the kuit, etc.. All of these things are valid and vital to what is VT..none of which has anything to do with "clinching".. :)

ChiSao is not about the clinch per se, it is about the clash before the clinch and issuing an unbroken line of power.. :D:cool::p

Once you clinch or are on the ground dealing with a grappler you need grappling experience...or a lot of luck.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well I was not replying because I really didn't see anything to reply about. It looked to me like he was tailoring his training to his audience, he was trying to explain the clinch in terms a wing chun audience would understand. I saw the usual things I have seen MMA coaches teach I didn't really see anything wingchun like to be honest, but as Mr Ross said it really is in the eye of the beholder I saw basic grappling being explained to a non grappling audience

***I don't disagree that Erik was showing wrestling/grappling to a non w/g audience - and using wing chun terminolgy since these were wc people.

But I also saw someone with a pretty darn good understanding of how and when to use things like pak sao, bil sao, huen sao, and fuk sao in real time application...as well as an understanding of what the difference is between regular chi sao and long arm chi sao....

and was using those things as entries into good solid wrestling/grappling clinch work and takedowns.

And he also demonstrates a real good understanding of wing chun central line theory and the use of two hands/arms simultaneously at close range.

Now the fact that these things "look" like other arts in some ways can be interpreted this way: effective fighting styles will all have a bunch of things in common...while at the same time bringing some fairly unique "pieces" of the puzzle to the table...

and then in time everyone gets to share in the communal dinner, so to speak.

And as I've been trying to say on this forum for a good 7-8 years now...wing chun does have something to offer at this mma feast.

[Frost]

***I don't disagree that Erik was showing wrestling/grappling to a non w/g audience - and using wing chun terminolgy since these were wc people.

But I also saw someone with a pretty darn good understanding of how and when to use things like pak sao, bil sao, huen sao, and fuk sao in real time application...as well as an understanding of what the difference is between regular chi sao and long arm chi sao....

and was using those things as entries into good solid wrestling/grappling clinch work and takedowns.

And he also demonstrates a real good understanding of wing chun central line theory and the use of two hands/arms simultaneously at close range.

Now the fact that these things "look" like other arts in some ways can be interpreted this way: effective fighting styles will all have a bunch of things in common...while at the same time bringing some fairly unique "pieces" of the puzzle to the table...

and then in time everyone gets to share in the communal dinner, so to speak.

And as I've been trying to say on this forum for a good 7-8 years now...wing chun does have something to offer at this mma feast.


what do you think it offers thats unique then? scooping the punch i have seen in thai and boxing against lazy punches , entering by checking the other arm i have seen in thai (but not often its too low percentage) steering wheel control is a standard grappling control point

i actually prefer his CSW tapes for enteries, going under the punch or puching into the clinch, i do not like reaching for the clinch or for punches like he showed here

[t_niehoff]

LOL... Eric is demonstrating exactly what I've been saying here forever. Chi sao, when done realistically, is going to be no different than clinch fighting. Watch that clip without the sound and you would never know when he was talking about chi sao, fuk sao, or any of the rest.

Compare what you saw in that clip with what you see 99% of WC people doing when they are doing chi sao and they look completely different.

Notice how you didn't see one of those slappy little backfists to the face, throat, and trunk area that you see all over the place when you see two guys doing chi sao.

If anything, what Eric showed there supports T's assertions about attached fighting.

Exactly.

Chi sao is a drill/exercise to practice the WCK movement in contact (for example, bong, tan, bong to tan, etc.) but it isn't fighting, and fighting won't "look" like chi sao.

But it makes absolutely no sense for an art's main, signature exercise ("the heart of WCK") to be an attached drill (called chi sao -- sticking arms or flexibly-attached arms) to learn or practice an art that is essentially noncontact. Nor does it make sense when you learn that the faat mun that is across lineages/styles describes contact/joining as the first step in fighting. I could go on and on, but when you are stuck in your dogmatic bubble ("Judo Chop Chueng is right") you are in an intellectual black hole (fantasy) from which you cannot escape.

When I use WCK at the MMA gym, no one recognizes it as WCK -- it looks like some variation of MT to them, as it is the only method they know that involves clinch and pound. All functional arts that fight in the clinch are going to agree on a fundamental level since they will all use those things that prove to work in attached fighting.

[t_niehoff]

***This is just pure rubbish. You, yourself destroyed Niehoff's assertions about using wing chun during "attached" mode (ie.- his amateur hour statements about using tan sao to get out of a MT plum - and his totally clueless claim that elbow strikes are wing chun's primary weapon)...


Ah, no he didn't.



and now you say that he knows what he's talking about?! Rubbish.

You see, Dale, your lack of wing chun knowledge at anything more than a rudimentary level becomes more and more apparent with each of your posts.

When Erik Paulson shows the wider width of the rolling motion - he rightly puts his finger on the fact that at that distance away from the opponent - if you're not going to strike - then you have to account for the opponent's ability to come around your arms/elbows when they're held close to your centerline and ribs...


That's exactly what you want him to do (which is why we control the center, to make him go around).



by widening the horizontal distance (expanding the width) between your arms...

so for example, in long arm chi sao, when the arms are further extended because you're further away from the opponent - you would look very similar to what Erik does when he...................
starts to come in for the double bicep ties and refers to them as use of the wing chun fuk sao and the chi sao rolling motion.


There is no "long arm chi sao".

Chi sao is just a drill/exercise to learn the movements/action. It doesn't teach you how to apply WCK.



Furthermore, the fact that Erik only works in this vid with going from some wing chun blocks, parries, and redirects (pak, bil, huen) to clinch, and some chi sao rolling motion to a fuk sao-like bicep tie...

and didn't include punching, palm strikes, and some use of block-and-strike...

doesn't mean that these aspects of wing chun can't be done against a skilled, resisting opponent. It simply means that he chose not to deal with any of that.

His focus in this vid was on something else.

Do you recall any posts of mine from previous threads (say about a year or two ago) wherein I wrote about punching at the opponent's shoulder lines?

Now compare that idea with Erik's idea (and what he actually demos) about using his left arm to bridge into his opponent's right arm/shoulder/bicep area...and his right arm doing the same against the opponent's left...

and see how this squares with the wing chun concepts about virtually always using two arms at the same time - as in some version of simultaneous (or near simultaneous) attack and defense.

Think about it.


You're so utterly clueless I don't know where to begin!



And btw, Dale, you're right about the hip pumping and pidgeon-toed stances - as they have no place in what Erik is getting at on that vid.

Because you don't know what you're doing.

But just keep on practicing with your scrub students and watching videos you don't understand, and living in your fantasy bubble listening to Judo Chop Cheung's stories and theories.

[YungChun]

Ladies and Gentlemen.................Mister Conway Twitty


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJVCjnAolp8

[sanjuro_ronin]

in my experience and opinion, an obvious feature of TCMA which contrubutes negatively to it's functionality is an obsession with attempting to both capture fluid movement in static posture AND to "stylize" it. It results in ridiculous posturing (pun intended) and later made up "rules" to explain/rationalize stuff that was never quite true to begin with

Well said Dave.

[sanjuro_ronin]

LOL... Eric is demonstrating exactly what I've been saying here forever. Chi sao, when done realistically, is going to be no different than clinch fighting. Watch that clip without the sound and you would never know when he was talking about chi sao, fuk sao, or any of the rest.

Compare what you saw in that clip with what you see 99% of WC people doing when they are doing chi sao and they look completely different.

Notice how you didn't see one of those slappy little backfists to the face, throat, and trunk area that you see all over the place when you see two guys doing chi sao.

If anything, what Eric showed there supports T's assertions about attached fighting.

Well, unless Eric has changed his views on WC since the last seminar I attended, and this is quite possible as it was sometime ago, I don't see how he views WC as "attached fighting" since, if I recall correctly, he said it was, in his view, a system of striking to "avoid" the clinch, in his view, again if I recall correctly, once the clinch is locked in, the fight will "degenerate" into a grappling match.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You're an utter moron.

totally clueless.

If you have a point to make, please make it, personal attacks are ridiculous.

[YungChun]

he said it was, in his view, a system of striking to "avoid" the clinch, in his view, again if I recall correctly, once the clinch is locked in, the fight will "degenerate" into a grappling match.


And there you go...........unless you believe that Chun was actually designed to dominate the clinch via use of attachment and elbow strikes.. Should be easy to prove with video clips.. :)

[Frost]

If you have a point to make, please make it, personal attacks are ridiculous.

come on on occasion they can be funny :D

[YungChun]

come on on occasion they can be funny :D

Agreed, if by "funny" you mean counter productive, immature and a waste of bandwidth... :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

And there you go...........unless you believe that Chun was actually designed to dominate the clinch via use of attachment and elbow strikes.. Should be easy to prove with video clips.. :)

Nope, I don't think WC was designed for that.
But I also know that, in the clinch, WC is NOT the ideal method to use.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Eric is probably one of the most underrated MA out there.
He is an encyclopedia of MA knowledge.
He has blended western and eastern MA into such a fluid mix that it makes one very envious.
He is, truly, a complete MA.

[YungChun]

Nope, I don't think WC was designed for that.
But I also know that, in the clinch, WC is NOT the ideal method to use.

Probably because it wasn't designed for that... ;)

Honestly there are a lot of tools Chunners can use that are never talked about or attempted very often, like use of the legs, the kicks, leg traps, stance attacks, and actually use of elbows and some things T probably uses..

I think if more folks trained actual clinch work they might find more VT uses or skills to avoid, escape or control that range...

[Frost]

Probably because it wasn't designed for that... ;)

Honestly there are a lot of tools Chunners can use that are never talked about or attempted very often, like use of the legs, the kicks, leg traps, stance attacks, and actually use of elbows and some things T probably uses..

I think if more folks trained actual clinch work they might find more uses or skills to avoid, escape or control that range...

are you saying that if wing chun guys trained the clinch more often they would find wing chun ways to escape or control the clinch.?

[YungChun]

are you saying that if wing chun guys trained the clinch more often they would find wing chun ways to escape or control the clinch.?

Yes in combination with other skills and tools..

For example if you could introduce MMA clinch-work to China 300 years ago what would VT look like now.?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes in combination with other skills and tools..

For example if you could introduce MMA clinch-work to China 300 years ago what would VT look like now.?

And that is really the crux of the matter, evolution.
WC must adapt to what it is being exposed to TODAY.
The traps of WC, where designed to deal with grabs and attempted grabs, as opposed to strikes, but now, as a WC person "traps", they must now counter not only the attempts to counter their trap and strikes, but they must also deal with take downs, clinches and the fruit salad projectiles.

[Frost]

Yes in combination with other skills and tools..

For example if you could introduce MMA clinch-work to China 300 years ago what would VT look like now.?

what do you think it would look like...geniune question

[m1k3]

Ladies and Gentlemen.................Mister Conway Twitty


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJVCjnAolp8

I have no idea what we did to deserve this but speaking for the forum as a whole we apologize and hope you never have to punish us again with Conway Twitty and his Twittybirds. We are truly and deeply sorry.

Signed, The Wing Chun Forum. :)

[YungChun]

what do you think it would look like...geniune question

I can't say... It would take into consideration those aspects which it didn't as well as the standard fare of what was there to begin with...

Of course folks did strike from the outside, throw and clinch then but the emphasis and methods varied..

It's something we really should know more about today, since if more VT was "functional" and the technically good schools of Chun had been actively on the fight scene for the last say 20 years, well we'd have dozens of clips to show us..........

[m1k3]

what do you think it would look like...geniune question

I think it would look a lot like dirty boxing. Look at Jens Pulver or Randy Couture.

[YungChun]

I have no idea what we did to deserve this but speaking for the forum as a whole we apologize and hope you never have to punish us again with Conway Twitty and his Twittybirds. We are truly and deeply sorry.

Signed, The Wing Chun Forum. :)

I guess you don't watch Family Guy...

Several threads as of late have degenerated to the point where a Conway Twitty segway is appropriate IMO, I was being kind.. :)

[m1k3]

I grew up listening to that and hee-haw because my father was a country music fan.

Years and years.

I will NEVER forgive him. :D

[YungChun]

I grew up listening to that and hee-haw because my father was a country music fan.

Years and years.

I will NEVER forgive him. :D

So you totally got that... Nice!:D

[HumbleWCGuy]

Just to be clear, that video is unrelated to WC IN the clinch. This video is about clinch entries. I can't say that I have seen too much misinformation about the uses of Wing Chun as a clinch entry system other than people who are just misinformed about WC in general.

Establishing any ting other than a kickboxing plumb or using some chi sao like stuff in the clinch, one is starting to get outside of the realm of WC. Establishing over-under and throwing someone is really getting into something else. Although, I think that throws and takedowns are seamless addendum to WC.

[Knifefighter]

***This is just pure rubbish. You, yourself destroyed Niehoff's assertions about using wing chun during "attached" mode (ie.- his amateur hour statements about using tan sao to get out of a MT plum - and his totally clueless claim that elbow strikes are wing chun's primary weapon)...

and now you say that he knows what he's talking about?! Rubbish.

While I disagree with T regarding the use of elbows and whether or not the arm entry to break the plum can be considered a tan sao, I basically agree with him on the attached fighting aspect.


You see, Dale, your lack of wing chun knowledge at anything more than a rudimentary level becomes more and more apparent with each of your posts.

What is apparent is your desperation to justify WC as being effective.

[HumbleWCGuy]

While I disagree with T regarding the use of elbows and whether or not the arm entry to break the plum can be considered a tan sao, I basically agree with him on the attached fighting aspect.



What is apparent is your desperation to justify WC as being effective.

In the interest of full disclosure neither one of you have a clue as to what you are talking about.

[Knifefighter]

Just to be clear, that video is unrelated to WC IN the clinch. This video is about clinch entries. I can't say that I have seen too much misinformation about the uses of Wing Chun as a clinch entry system other than people who are just misinformed about WC in general.

Establishing any ting other than a kickboxing plumb or using some chi sao like stuff in the clinch, one is starting to get outside of the realm of WC. Establishing over-under and throwing someone is really getting into something else. Although, I think that throws and takedowns are seamless addendum to WC.

LOL when the WC guys can't even agree where WC is used... no wonder nobody takes it seriously.

[Knifefighter]

In the interest of full disclosure neither one of you have a clue as to what you are talking about.

And, since Victor, was the one who used that clip as an example of WC, he must not know what he is talking about either, right?

[HumbleWCGuy]

And, since Victor, was the one who used that clip as an example of WC, he must not know what he is talking about either, right?

It was an example of WC. It was just an example of WC to enter into the clinch and not an example of WC in the clinch.

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL when the WC guys can't even agree where WC is used... no wonder nobody takes it seriously.

Consensus isn't needed for effectiveness.

[Knifefighter]

It was an example of WC. It was just an example of WC to enter into the clinch and not an example of WC in the clinch.

I'm pretty sure Victor was talking about both entry and in the clinch, but you'll have to ask him.

[Frost]

I'm pretty sure Victor was talking about both entry and in the clinch, but you'll have to ask him.

thats how i read it too, the whole chi sao control position being similar to the steering wheel and so on

[HumbleWCGuy]

I'm pretty sure Victor was talking about both entry and in the clinch, but you'll have to ask him.
For me it really comes down to the fact that WC needs to center around clinching to strike and only taking easy throws that come up because of the striking. I am not saying that over under can't or won't ever come up or should not be taught. It's just that Eric was demonstrating WC to grappling rather than WC to clinch striking, and, "Oh by the way, here is an easy throw that comes up."

[Frost]

For me it really comes down to the fact that WC needs to center around clinching to strike and only taking easy throws that come up because of the striking. I am not saying that over under can't or won't ever come up or should not be taught. It's just that Eric was demonstrating WC to grappling rather than WC to clinch striking, and, "Oh by the way, here is an easy throw that comes up."

so what control positions would you have liked him to show? the 50/50 is the most common position you see in a fight and if you enter the clinch its what will happen to you......don't you think it should be covered in depth, whether its throwing from the position or setting up strikes?

[lkfmdc]

I may live to regret this post, but.....

If you ask me, arguing over whether Wing Chun was designed to ENTER the clinch or AVOID the clinch is a false premise

Wing Chun, like pretty much all TCMA, is based upon a presupposed context, which in the days it was developed was what we sometimes call "bridge fighting".

If two people agree (consciously or unconsiously) to fight in a certain context the techniques will work there differently than if one person is trying to play "that game" and the other has a "different game"

A student who did Taekwondo for years asked me why the kicks are different in San Da, I told him because in TKD there are certain presumptions, in San Da, different ones. In modern fighting, influenced by "MMA" there are newere ones.

Personally, I like that Erik has taken material from widely different sources and integrated it into a system that is relevant for today's assumpitons

[Knifefighter]

For me it really comes down to the fact that WC needs to center around clinching to strike and only taking easy throws that come up because of the striking. I am not saying that over under can't or won't ever come up or should not be taught. It's just that Eric was demonstrating WC to grappling rather than WC to clinch striking, and, "Oh by the way, here is an easy throw that comes up."


LOL @ thinking easy throws come from striking.

[HumbleWCGuy]

so what control positions would you have liked him to show? the 50/50 is the most common position you see in a fight and if you enter the clinch its what will happen to you......don't you think it should be covered in depth, whether its throwing from the position or setting up strikes?


Hypothetically, if he were teaching WC, you would have to say that it wasn't quite correct in that he had the option of which position to pick based on his entry. Therefore, he should have chosen a neck tie of some kind so that he could strike.

Keep in mind that I am not against the over under. It is a good position that needs some coverage. I am only saying that if the mentality of someone is to use WC to get into a grappling position to grapple rather than strike then they are stepping outside of what WC is. It isn't good or bad. It is just a reality.

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL @ thinking easy throws come from striking.

It is something that you would not understand for 2 reasons.

A. You can't hit so nobody cares about your striking. Therefore, you experience no advantage when you strike over a pure grappling match.
B. You have no chin so one good shot puts you flat on your back which means that you have never experienced a strike setting up a throw.

[Knifefighter]

A. You can't hit so nobody cares about your striking. Therefore, you experience no advantage when you strike over a pure grappling match.

You are the one who has demonstrated over and over again he has zero striking knowledge.



You have no chin so one good shot puts you flat on your back which means that you have never experienced a strike setting up a throw.

Striking an opponent can set him up for a takedown. Setting up a throw is a different matter, you need the clinch/grappling ability for that.

Of course you wouldn't know that, since you are speaking from a zero experience standpoint and a purely theoretical non-fighter (tm) standpoint.

[HumbleWCGuy]

You are the one who has demonstrated over and over again he has zero striking knowledge.




Striking an opponent can set him up for a takedown. Setting up a throw is a different matter, you need the clinch/grappling ability for that.

Of course you wouldn't know that, since you are speaking from a zero experience standpoint and a purely theoretical non-fighter (tm) standpoint.

A back track with an insult thrown in is still a backtrack. Thanks Dale.

[Knifefighter]

A back track with an insult thrown in is still a backtrack. Thanks Dale.

LOL @ thinking a takedown and a throw are the same thing. Thanks for once again proving your cluelessness.

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL @ thinking a takedown and a throw are the same thing. Thanks for once again proving your cluelessness.

You must be the lonliest man alive. Try some internet dating. I am sure that there is a women or man out there for you. Someone has to be seeking out a washed up loser whose biggest claim to fame is trolling a kung fu forum.

[Knifefighter]

You must be the lonliest man alive. Try some internet dating. I am sure that there is a women or man out there for you. Someone has to be seeking out a washed up loser whose biggest claim to fame is trolling a kung fu forum.

Translation: "I got pwn3d for my cluelessness once again."

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL @ thinking a takedown and a throw are the same thing. Thanks for once again proving your cluelessness.

You should probably watch some San Da fights so you can stop embarrassing yourself. I think that the truth about your big MT career is becoming evident.

Never used a speed bag and doesn't know what it is for
Unaware of Arm locks in MT
Never used strikes to set up throws or takedowns
Smoked by garaged training fighters in mma matches
Smoked by Rashun
Trolls a kung fu forum because you think that you are a big fish in a small pond


And some how out of all of that, you have concluded that you know something about TCMA. What a hoot!

All of these truths become more evident as your obsession with trying to prove me wrong grows. The reality is that you just don't know what you are doing and everybody knows it. There has been a marked decline in your credibility as I have brought the facts out about you. Please keep talking because it does all my work for me.

[t_niehoff]

Consensus isn't needed for effectiveness.

This is one of the VERY few things I agree with you about.

And, similarly, that a view is popular or widespread doesn't make it valid.

[Knifefighter]

The closer a drill is to how it is actually used in practice, the better that drill is

Someone else who actually gets it. Not surprising, though, that he's not a WC guy.

[Knifefighter]

Well, unless Eric has changed his views on WC since the last seminar I attended, and this is quite possible as it was sometime ago, I don't see how he views WC as "attached fighting" since, if I recall correctly, he said it was, in his view, a system of striking to "avoid" the clinch, in his view, again if I recall correctly, once the clinch is locked in, the fight will "degenerate" into a grappling match.

I agree also. WC, if and when used effectively, will be more on the outside to keep an opponent off, and once grabbing/grappling range occurs will pretty much turn into clinch/grappling.

Whether the actual techniques used in the clinch/grappling portion are defined as WC or not then becomes a matter of what you consider to be WC techniques.

[sanjuro_ronin]

WC has some good stuff, when applied correctly, case in point this use of the double palms:
http://cnsdev.dk/hosted/Loof/Motivational%20Posters/Hadouken.jpg

[t_niehoff]

I agree also. WC, if and when used effectively, will be more on the outside to keep an opponent off, and once grabbing/grappling range occurs will pretty much turn into clinch/grappling.

Whether the actual techniques used in the clinch/grappling portion are defined as WC or not then becomes a matter of what you consider to be WC techniques.

WCK has some close body stuff, but it mostly involves keeping attached to your opponent while keeping a measure of distance between your bodies (so you are not body to body in most cases) -- much like MT and/or dirty boxing. Of course, this only makes sense if you are trying to use the contact to control and strike rather than as a prelude to a takedown: body to body smothers most striking attempts.

[YungChun]

WC has some good stuff, when applied correctly, case in point this use of the double palms:
http://cnsdev.dk/hosted/Loof/Motivational%20Posters/Hadouken.jpg

Which begs the question: why you'd want to keep that away, well it is a woman's art... Still that would be better fully "clinched"... :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

what do you think it offers thats unique then? scooping the punch i have seen in thai and boxing against lazy punches , entering by checking the other arm i have seen in thai (but not often its too low percentage) steering wheel control is a standard grappling control point

i actually prefer his CSW tapes for enteries, going under the punch or puching into the clinch, i do not like reaching for the clinch or for punches like he showed here

***What's somewhat unique to wing chun, and what can be successfully added, imo, to the mma table...is some close range striking moves and concepts - such as vertical (and semi-vertical) elbows in close to the sides straight line punching that can easily be accompanied (because of the squared up shoulders) by simultaneous (or near simultaneous) blocking, parrying, and checking with the other hand...at very close range...

and some blocks, parries, and redirects from longer ranges as well - and which, at the longer ranges, are moves that aren't being used by other stylists...who instead are simply moving out of range (or relying on basic coverup blocking patterns)...

all of which are things I'm not criticizing; but rather, I'm simply saying that the moves I alluded to can be a nice addition to the defensive arsenal already in play.

And furthermore, at the closer ranges, while I don't like the term trapping because it's overused and overated - I'll say that in close ranges wing chun provides the ability in certain situations to "check"....or.... "manipulate" an opponent's arm so that it's no longer a weapon for him for a given moment - while providing an opportunity to use the other arm to strike an open target...

while blocking out the opponent's ability to be successfully striking with his other hand - even though that other hand may be free...

and the same "checking/manipulating" (and blocking patterns) can also be used to set up an advantageous clinch, sweep, or takedown - as Erik Paulson so deftly demonstrates in the vid.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Well, unless Eric has changed his views on WC since the last seminar I attended, and this is quite possible as it was sometime ago, I don't see how he views WC as 'attached fighting' since, if I recall correctly, he said it was, in his view, a system of striking to 'avoid' the clinch, in his view, again if I recall correctly, once the clinch is locked in, the fight will 'degenerate' into a grappling match." (sanjuro)
....................................

***AND not surprisingly, given who he is and what he's been doing intensively for decades now - Erik is quite right.

Oh, and ditto to Paul's insights from this other post he made:

"Eric is probably one of the most underrated MA out there.
He is an encyclopedia of MA knowledge.
He has blended western and eastern MA into such a fluid mix that it makes one very envious.
He is, truly, a complete MA."

[goju]

You must be the lonliest man alive. Try some internet dating. I am sure that there is a women or man out there for you. Someone has to be seeking out a washed up loser whose biggest claim to fame is trolling a kung fu forum.

http://renegade-cruisers.net/bb/images/smilies/rofl.gif

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm pretty sure Victor was talking about both entry and in the clinch, but you'll have to ask him.

***I was not talking about using wing chun once in the clinch.

[Ultimatewingchun]

thats how i read it too, the whole chi sao control position being similar to the steering wheel and so on

***Okay, now I understand. The fuk sao-like bicep tie that Erik demos - and the turning (steering wheel) motion is very similar to wing chun chi sao motions...yes...but I know from experience to quickly take the wing chun hat off once in such a clinch-type mode as what Erik demoes - and what he compares to chi sao and fuk sao...

in truth, I like the Greco way of holding the bicep tie waaaay more than a fuk sao hand/wrist position.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I may live to regret this post, but.....

If you ask me, arguing over whether Wing Chun was designed to ENTER the clinch or AVOID the clinch is a false premise

Wing Chun, like pretty much all TCMA, is based upon a presupposed context, which in the days it was developed was what we sometimes call "bridge fighting".

If two people agree (consciously or unconsiously) to fight in a certain context the techniques will work there differently than if one person is trying to play "that game" and the other has a "different game"

A student who did Taekwondo for years asked me why the kicks are different in San Da, I told him because in TKD there are certain presumptions, in San Da, different ones. In modern fighting, influenced by "MMA" there are newere ones.

Personally, I like that Erik has taken material from widely different sources and integrated it into a system that is relevant for today's assumptions. (Dave Ross)
........................................

***THAT'S a good observation, Dave. Wing chun is basically close range striking - which means that very often they'll be limb-to-limb contact (bridging)...which, as I suspect you would agree with - is different than "attached" fighting...in that wing chun is designed for close quarters and bridging - but once in clinch mode - wing chun is out of it's bounds. The system is not about "attachment".

True, there is the wooden dummy move wherein a single neck/head tie is in play while the other hand strikes, and there are a few sweeps in the system - which naturally require an unbalancing of the opponent before the actual sweep (or a hit to set it up)...

but these moves are the exception to the rule. In general, wing chun is all about striking the opponent while having both of one's arms in play (and with both arms able to be free) for multiple hits.

[Ultimatewingchun]

WC has some good stuff, when applied correctly, case in point this use of the double palms:
http://cnsdev.dk/hosted/Loof/Motivational%20Posters/Hadouken.jpg

***NO, I'm sorry Paul, but that's bad wing chun. He shouldn't be pushing her away with those double palms - he should be pulling her towards him. :cool: :D

[Frost]

Hypothetically, if he were teaching WC, you would have to say that it wasn't quite correct in that he had the option of which position to pick based on his entry. Therefore, he should have chosen a neck tie of some kind so that he could strike.

Keep in mind that I am not against the over under. It is a good position that needs some coverage. I am only saying that if the mentality of someone is to use WC to get into a grappling position to grapple rather than strike then they are stepping outside of what WC is. It isn't good or bad. It is just a reality.

i think he was using it to get into the clinch and strike or throw, i don't think he had a preference other than showing the basic position you end up in most of the time in the clinch. 50/50 is the position you have to teach first because its what happens the most, then you have to earn the right to strike in the clinch.

I understand you point about teaching the necktie for striking but using the entries he was showing it would have been hard to get a double tie up, and when it comes to striking in the clinch the double tie is the position you want

[punchdrunk]

interesting clip, looks like Erik Paulson gives a good seminar and knows how to tailor things for specific student types. lots of good ideas in his vids for training san da.