WCK facing

[t_niehoff]

If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

[LoneTiger108]

If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

Jumping on my elemental band wagon dear Watson?? :eek::rolleyes:

Why not just answer your own questions because you know that's all you can hear dude :D

[CFT]

That is "element" as in component, feature, etc. Pretty normal use of English. You might as well critique his use of punctuation marks because he seems to use the same symbols that you do.

BTW, Terence's use of the word "element" on these forums pre-dates yours by a few years.

TN
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=596013&postcount=102

LT108
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=820100&postcount=49

[SAAMAG]

If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

I realize you're trying to create some sort of discussion on this...but really...like Lone said...you're going to dismiss everything except what you agree with. That's not much of a learning experience or exchange of ideas.

[t_niehoff]

I realize you're trying to create some sort of discussion on this...but really...like Lone said...you're going to dismiss everything except what you agree with. That's not much of a learning experience or exchange of ideas.

What does it matter if I agree or disagree?

And, you may be surprised but I do learn somethings from these discussions. First, because they sometimes make me think (or rethink) and try to verbalize things I haven't verbalized before. So, it helps me to clarify my own ideas. Second, because sometimes people do offer perspective, ideas, etc. that I haven't heard or considered, and they can offer solid reasons (and evidence) that support their views.

Truth springs from argument among friends. David Hume

Not agreement but argument.

[KPM]

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

---In order to use both our arms (or legs) equally so that we are not putting one side of our body and therefore half of our weapons at a disadvantage by pulling them back in a "pivoted" position.

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

---By developing a "coiling" or "spiraling" dynamic that uses a small rotation through the core of the body to help project power out through an arm. This doesn't require pivoting the body by moving the feet.

[t_niehoff]

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

---In order to use both our arms (or legs) equally so that we are not putting one side of our body and therefore half of our weapons at a disadvantage by pulling them back in a "pivoted" position.


I agree. Although, I assume by "weapons" you mean our limbs.



And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

---By developing a "coiling" or "spiraling" dynamic that uses a small rotation through the core of the body to help project power out through an arm. This doesn't require pivoting the body by moving the feet.

So what you are advocating is a "small" rotation? What are you using the rotation for?

And, if you use rotation for striking power, even a small rotation for power, doesn't that then mean you can only use "half your weapons"? Since once you rotate, the lead side (since you are no longer square-on) is dead?

[KPM]

So what you are advocating is a "small" rotation? What are you using the rotation for?

---Yes a small coiling or rotation like the small almost imperceptible "twist" that goes into a Tan Sau, Fook Sau, or Bong Sau. This small "twist" adds to the power generation.

And, if you use rotation for striking power, even a small rotation for power, doesn't that then mean you can only use "half your weapons"? Since once you rotate, the lead side (since you are no longer square-on) is dead?

---No, I don't think so. There is an element of "elastic recoil" that is part of normal physiology that brings the body back to "square" quickly without any real effort. Just as the punch naturally drops back without having to pull it back. Unless of course, someone has exaggerated the rotation.

[Phil Redmond]

In TWC we do SNT/SLT and "some" chi sao training square on but we never fight square on.
And we're still able to strike the same points in space with both hands. I know most will disagree with that but I'm good with it. ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

In TWC we do SNT/SLT and "some" chi sao training square on but we never fight square on.
And we're still able to strike the same points in space with both hands. I know most will disagree with that but I'm good with it. ;)

***CLOSE....but no cigar. In TWC we will fight square on once a line has been completely taken and occupied. From a side body position (ie.- not square on) we will fight for dominance - and after a hit has been made, for example, from the blindside positioning - a hit that gains us control because it did some damage...then we will often continue the attack by squaring up and blasting away as a fan sao (followup attack).

Have seen GM William Cheung do this dozens of times through the years as part of his fighting method.

[Phil Redmond]

***CLOSE....but no cigar. In TWC we will fight square on once a line has been completely taken and occupied. From a side body position (ie.- not square on) we will fight for dominance - and after a hit has been made, for example, from the blindside positioning - a hit that gains us control because it did some damage...then we will often continue the attack by squaring up and blasting away as a fan sao (followup attack).

Have seen GM William Cheung do this dozens of times through the years as part of his fighting method.
Got video from the 11/7/10 seminar of Sifu Cheung saying we never fight square and why when someone from another WC style questioned our methodology. And no, I'm not getting into a p***ing match with you about the subject. We will use the centerline if we are positioned like this
I---

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've got video too, wherein GM Cheung uses squared up punching as fan sao.

Would you like me to send you a copy of some of it?

Just pm me your current address and I'll mail a dvd to you.

[Phil Redmond]

In a fight you do anything necessary so I know what you're saying. So what ever works for the situation. Thanks for the offer. I have some stuff for you as well my WC brother.

[SAAMAG]

What does it matter if I agree or disagree?

And, you may be surprised but I do learn somethings from these discussions. First, because they sometimes make me think (or rethink) and try to verbalize things I haven't verbalized before. So, it helps me to clarify my own ideas. Second, because sometimes people do offer perspective, ideas, etc. that I haven't heard or considered, and they can offer solid reasons (and evidence) that support their views.

Truth springs from argument among friends. David Hume

Not agreement but argument.

An argument in the Greek sense is indeed the search for "truth". But that only works when one is open to the ideas that are presented by those opposing parties. You say that one should provide proof to validate, yet its the logic that is presented that leads the argument. Did you know that one of the pieces of "logic" that was used by Greek philosophers was "stranger things have happened"?

But as not to digress, some of the common reasons given for square facing off the top of my head are to allow for both arms to be used equally and in succession, to give a structural base for the centerline punch, and to provide multiple options for turning your opponent and gaining the preferred blindeside.

In response to your turning question, I generally will turn the other guy as I move in, or step to the outside and turn into them to face and attack on a new line.

[Wayfaring]

And, if you use rotation for striking power, even a small rotation for power, doesn't that then mean you can only use "half your weapons"? Since once you rotate, the lead side (since you are no longer square-on) is dead?

So here is where theory departs from reality.

MT also has the element being different from boxing of having 2 sides live. In contrast, you see much shallower stances, with greater lateral movement, and a shorter distance between the back side strikes and kicks than you do in boxing.

In boxing there is the jab / cross. However, there is a long/short disparity in boxing - the cross has a much ****her distance to travel to land than the jab. This is counteracted by the jab being a quicker and lighter strike to open up target areas for the cross to traverse and strike.

WCK is built upon centerline, and having 2 sides live. However, this does not mean a square stance. A square stance is weak front and back, and does not have depth structure. However, it is stronger in dealing with clinch / grappling.

In reality, even in the most square stance, there still are 2 gates - the outer and inner. In WCK this is represented by the man sau and wu sau hand skills. There can be no true structure in the wu sau hand in a completely square stance.

IMO WCK in a live environment there is migration between a square stance and a stance that has more structure, which is a 6 gate stance, with structure involved in the wu sau hand. However, there is not a complete commitment one side to the point where you lose the 2 sides live element.

There is ALWAYS SOME functional rotation or curvilinear motion in any powerful strikes. However, in WCK this is not the extreme rotation found in the larger movements of the boxing power punches. There is an element of the bridge, controlling the opponent's center, and forward pressure along the centerline. With absolutely no functional rotation in body parts there can be no power in striking.

[YungChun]

Hand Unity--hands working as one, Hand Replacement maintaining pressure and position, Chun Timing, Energy Issuing, using the legs and hands together with the body to break him down, FanSao, etc, all require facing the opponent... Much the same as in grappling, also as is seen in most other close range arts--it's part and parcel of the close range fight.

Rotation can be used to assist our maintaining of facing/position when dealing with great pressure; rotation can also be used to unbalance and IME for finishing as a secondary assist for power generation in striking or with elbows..

[t_niehoff]

In TWC we do SNT/SLT and "some" chi sao training square on but we never fight square on.
And we're still able to strike the same points in space with both hands. I know most will disagree with that but I'm good with it. ;)

Cheung sees WCK as a form of kickboxing, so it is not surprising that he doesn't advocate square-on facing. Square-on facing is essential for inside/contact fighting, not the outside game.

[t_niehoff]

So what you are advocating is a "small" rotation? What are you using the rotation for?

---Yes a small coiling or rotation like the small almost imperceptible "twist" that goes into a Tan Sau, Fook Sau, or Bong Sau. This small "twist" adds to the power generation.


What exactly is twisting?



And, if you use rotation for striking power, even a small rotation for power, doesn't that then mean you can only use "half your weapons"? Since once you rotate, the lead side (since you are no longer square-on) is dead?

---No, I don't think so. There is an element of "elastic recoil" that is part of normal physiology that brings the body back to "square" quickly without any real effort. Just as the punch naturally drops back without having to pull it back. Unless of course, someone has exaggerated the rotation.

I don't see any evidence of this "elastic recoil". If I rotate with a punch, my body doesn't automatically return to square-on, does yours?

[t_niehoff]

So here is where theory departs from reality.

MT also has the element being different from boxing of having 2 sides live. In contrast, you see much shallower stances, with greater lateral movement, and a shorter distance between the back side strikes and kicks than you do in boxing.

In boxing there is the jab / cross. However, there is a long/short disparity in boxing - the cross has a much ****her distance to travel to land than the jab. This is counteracted by the jab being a quicker and lighter strike to open up target areas for the cross to traverse and strike.


And this rotation in both MT and boxing pertains to outside (free-movement) fighting.



WCK is built upon centerline, and having 2 sides live.


WCK isn't"built on the centerline." Why does WCK's method NEED you to be able to use both sides freely?



However, this does not mean a square stance. A square stance is weak front and back, and does not have depth structure. However, it is stronger in dealing with clinch / grappling.

In reality, even in the most square stance, there still are 2 gates - the outer and inner. In WCK this is represented by the man sau and wu sau hand skills. There can be no true structure in the wu sau hand in a completely square stance.


What you are saying doesn't make much sense to me. Mun sao and wu sao are actions, and have nothing to do with "gates."

You CAN always have structure, the question is are you using the appropriate structure for the moment. Structure isn't a static or fixed thing but dynamic.

Whether your feet are square or whether you have one leg forward pertain IME more to what it is you are doing (feet square is often used to setup penetration, one leg forward is to penetrate). Of course, all this refers to inside/contact.



IMO WCK in a live environment there is migration between a square stance and a stance that has more structure, which is a 6 gate stance, with structure involved in the wu sau hand. However, there is not a complete commitment one side to the point where you lose the 2 sides live element.


6 gate stance is more nonsense. As I see it, when we are inside, in contact, there is NO stance, there is only dynamic structure -- dynamically using our body to try and control and strike the opponent and not be controlled. How the body/legs move is therefore fluid and organic.



There is ALWAYS SOME functional rotation or curvilinear motion in any powerful strikes.


Why?



However, in WCK this is not the extreme rotation found in the larger movements of the boxing power punches. There is an element of the bridge, controlling the opponent's center, and forward pressure along the centerline. With absolutely no functional rotation in body parts there can be no power in striking.

Why?

BTW, I am not talking about rotation of body parts (my shoulder, being an ball and socket joint obviously has to rotate) but rotation of/at the waist.

[YungChun]

Any rotation of the waist in the standard hammer nail power generation is extremely minimal to the point of being almost non existent. The hammer/nail power is still very much there when done correctly and IMO quite powerful...

[KPM]

What exactly is twisting?

---Same as "coiling" or "spiraling"....forward progressive rotational motion around a central axis. Better demonstrated than explained. ;)



I don't see any evidence of this "elastic recoil". If I rotate with a punch, my body doesn't automatically return to square-on, does yours?

---Sure it does! You are probably rotating too much. The motion is slight and hard to see. Its like a wave....once it crashes forward, it automatically rolls back. Or like "cracking" a whip...once it strikes it naturally recoils. Or like pushing open a door....once your forward pressure is released, your arm naturally drops back.


Why does WCK's method NEED you to be able to use both sides freely?

---Going by the conclusions of a prior thread (which I liked).....another reason would be so that one arm can "attach" and control while the other strikes.



BTW, I am not talking about rotation of body parts (my shoulder, being an ball and socket joint obviously has to rotate) but rotation of/at the waist.

---I agree. Powered by the legs, the main "cog" or driver being the waist or Kwa, transmitted by the spine and then out the attacking limb. Its a small "impulse" not a big "turning."

[Wayfaring]

And this rotation in both MT and boxing pertains to outside (free-movement) fighting.

Not true at all. Hooks and uppercuts in boxing as well as knees and elbows in MT are inside tools.



WCK isn't"built on the centerline." Why does WCK's method NEED you to be able to use both sides freely?

WCK lives and dies on the centerline. Both sides free offers simultaneous defense.



What you are saying doesn't make much sense to me. Mun sao and wu sao are actions, and have nothing to do with "gates."

And those actions take place at different ranges. Mun sao asks at a distance away from the body, wu closer to the body.


You CAN always have structure, the question is are you using the appropriate structure for the moment. Structure isn't a static or fixed thing but dynamic.

No, remaining in a square stance you cannot always have structure. Simple illustration - try passing the guard (grappling) while remaining square throughout the movement. You will get collapsed on one side or the other unless your opponent doesn't know what they are doing. The standard grips as well as hip and foot placement are for structure, same as in a good WCK stance.


Whether your feet are square or whether you have one leg forward pertain IME more to what it is you are doing (feet square is often used to setup penetration, one leg forward is to penetrate). Of course, all this refers to inside/contact.

Yes your feet are connected to your body, and footwork is for a purpose.


6 gate stance is more nonsense. As I see it, when we are inside, in contact, there is NO stance, there is only dynamic structure -- dynamically using our body to try and control and strike the opponent and not be controlled. How the body/legs move is therefore fluid and organic.

You are unaware of what I mean by 4 gate and 6 gate stances, and have a bad habit of calling things you don't understand "nonsense". If you have dynamic structure and pressure on the inside you yourself will probably be traversing through these. Yes these are fluid inside, but there are basic alignment principles of your own body parts involved in good structure to permit you to continue controlling your opponent on the inside with forward pressure. There are keys to this as it pertains to hip, knee and elbow.

There is rotational or curved motion in punches because it is required. You can't crack a whip with straight line motion. Notice the small curves in that motion.

[SAAMAG]

Once again, if you simply dismiss another viewpoint and tell them it's nonsense you're not argueing in the Greek sense of the word. You're arguing in the Internet sense. Do you win court cases simply by dismissing another's testimony as nonsense?

If you disagree give your own reasons as to why based on logic, common knowledge, and experience. Coming at it in an authoritative "it is" or "it isn't" isn't productive.

So if wck isn't built on the centerline and having both arms available--what is it built on and what evidence do you have to support that theory?

Additionally, what evidence do you have that the wck system doesn't have gates or set postures? If an instructor uses gates in his presentation of ideas--then for that subset gates do exist. Doesn't matter if you agree or not. If another subset of wc wants to use the term man and wu sao as descriptors for hand positions (which they do) then they are both actions and static positions. Again, you can disagree all day long but it's existence in that context is real.

[SAAMAG]

Not true at all. Hooks and uppercuts in boxing as well as knees and elbows in MT are inside tools. To be fair, he means unattached more than likely. So while knees and elbows are typically done attached the hooks and uppercuts are not...typically.


You are unaware of what I mean by 4 gate and 6 gate stances, and have a bad habit of calling things you don't understand "nonsense".
He's aware, just doesn't like to use them in his training method.


There is rotational or curved motion in punches because it is required. You can't crack a whip with straight line motion. Notice the small curves in that motion.

Good point. Though the whipping aspect is a different sort of punch then the nail and hammer styled punch that T may be referring to. So apples and oranges so to speak. The whipping punches are used heavily on MT as opposed to leg and body driven punches--that's one of the subtle differences in muay thai's boxing versus conventional boxing.

[Lee Chiang Po]

We use the word "Stance", but like T says, it is not really a stance as such, but more a dynamic structure that we maintain in order to apply our strengths. Footwork gets us from a to b while we maintain this dynamic structure. I don't turn into a punch to generate power, mainly because it does not really generate power. If it does, it is not really much and it reduces the ability to use both sides in rapid succession. Your structure should allow you to apply all the force that you are capible of mustering, and at a very rapid succession of movement. You can have a right forward, or left forward, and still maintain the center line. You can not do so from a true side on "stance". This does limit your fighting ability to half. You can not fully defend from a side on unless your opponent is doing a side on. If he is doing a side on, it puts him at a serious disadvantage if you are facing him. Any punch or blow that comes from turning is about like a hook. It depends on momentum more than physical power, and you have to actually fully commit.
Any action has a reaction. Not always equal, but close. So when you hook or use a turning motion to generate your power, it fades off with a certain amount of reaction. When you use your dynamic structure, your reaction force is blocked and so goes forward with that power, increasing your punch power. I don't think I explained that well. But that is how I look at it.

[JPinAZ]

***CLOSE....but no cigar. In TWC we will fight square on once a line has been completely taken and occupied. From a side body position (ie.- not square on) we will fight for dominance - and after a hit has been made, for example, from the blindside positioning - a hit that gains us control because it did some damage...then we will often continue the attack by squaring up and blasting away as a fan sao (followup attack).


Actually, this sounds similar to our 6-gate Tin Yan Dei (TYD = Heaven/human/earth) and 4-gate TYD concepts. 6-gate TYD for kiu sau engagements (working on the edge of the box). Something similar to your side body position from TWC vids I've seen. Facing and alignments are a little different, but generally the same idea.
And then 4-gate TYD (more squared up) for attack/defense once we have the proper range, position & control (for working inside the box).

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's a very simple and basic example of what I was talking about. Watch the squared up centerline fan sao positioning (and follow up strikes) that came after the initial side body response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ew7OVPHFI&feature=related

[t_niehoff]

Not true at all. Hooks and uppercuts in boxing as well as knees and elbows in MT are inside tools.


Actually, you're right. They are a part of boxing and MT on the inside. And this is because neither permit takedowns, taking the back, etc.



WCK lives and dies on the centerline. Both sides free offers simultaneous defense.


You are confusing two things, the centerline and facing. The ability to use both sides freely pertains to square-on facing, not the centerline (which doesn't depend on facing).



And those actions take place at different ranges. Mun sao asks at a distance away from the body, wu closer to the body.


No. Mun sao can take place at ANY range (it is a TACTIC, not a specific WCK movement/action/technique), and so can wu sao.



No, remaining in a square stance you cannot always have structure. Simple illustration - try passing the guard (grappling) while remaining square throughout the movement. You will get collapsed on one side or the other unless your opponent doesn't know what they are doing. The standard grips as well as hip and foot placement are for structure, same as in a good WCK stance.


You MUST always have structure on the inside or you will be run over. I don't know what YOU mean by square stance; I mean one without having a leg forward. Of course you can't remain in that -- you have to be continually adjusting to what your opponent does. As far as square-on facing, on the inside if I am not facing square, then I am giving my opponent an advantage.

What happens on the ground does not illustrate what happens on the inside/stand-up.



Yes your feet are connected to your body, and footwork is for a purpose.


Yes, to control your opponent.



You are unaware of what I mean by 4 gate and 6 gate stances, and have a bad habit of calling things you don't understand "nonsense".


I call anything based on fantasy/theory as nonsense. I don't need to "understand" the theory -- the mere fact it is theory tells me it is nonsense.



If you have dynamic structure and pressure on the inside you yourself will probably be traversing through these. Yes these are fluid inside, but there are basic alignment principles of your own body parts involved in good structure to permit you to continue controlling your opponent on the inside with forward pressure. There are keys to this as it pertains to hip, knee and elbow.


There are no "basic alignment principles" -- but there are basic alignment parameters. And this is not semantics. For example, being/moving from the balls of your feet isn't a "principle" but something you need to do. Same with keeping the knees bent, not allowing your shoulders to move over your knee, etc.



There is rotational or curved motion in punches because it is required. You can't crack a whip with straight line motion. Notice the small curves in that motion.

The punch isn't a whip and doesn't move like a whip. Of course there is rotation in the joints but that isn't what I am talking about. I was talking about using waist rotation, and WCK doesn't use it. It is not in the forms, it is not in the dummy, it is not in the exercises.

[jeetsao]

Here's a very simple and basic example of what I was talking about. Watch the squared up centerline fan sao positioning (and follow up strikes) that came after the initial side body response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5ew7OVPHFI&feature=related

Interesting discussion. With all due respect, I do not understand, and am pretty uncomfortable with the initial response that moves away from the punch without taking ground from the opponent ( as illustrated in the video). You can say that this is a sidestep but the "energy" appears to move away from the opponent. ( this is an honest inquiry, not a crack at W. Cheung)

[Ultimatewingchun]

No offense taken. But look at it this way: he's avoiding the head on force by doing a small side step as the punch comes in on him. It all depends upon the commitment of the attacker. The more the attacker tries to penetrate with that punch, the more unnecessary it is to "step in and try to take ground" - and a simple side step will do the job.

[Phil Redmond]

Cheung sees WCK as a form of kickboxing, so it is not surprising that he doesn't advocate square-on facing. Square-on facing is essential for inside/contact fighting, not the outside game.
Your comment was expected and shows how little you know. Anything outside of your realm of understanding must be wrong, right?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't read his posts since I put him on IGNORE quite some time ago, but since Phil Redmond just quoted him, I see yet once again the garbage that Terence Niehoff tries to pass along as fact.

Yes, IGNORE is your friend. :cool:

[YungChun]

Anytime Cheung does his super hyper speed chain punches he has to face and does. Unless anyone cares to argue that he is changing his lead 8-12 times per second..:rolleyes:

Also it seems pretty clear from just about any of his vids that his version (what he does in his vids) of Chun, many of the moves are done from a longer distance than most other Chun--at times so far out no real contact could be made.. Perhaps the source of why what he does is seen by some as longer range--since that's where he normally is.. Of course one can only go by the "demos" seen.

[Phil Redmond]

You must have learned that history is made by the conquerers and popluar folklore. Which means it's not always factual. You rant about what WC "is" and "isn't" based on what little you know of it and what you've heard and been taught. You write as if you were present during the development of Wing Chun. I've been doing martial arts since 1966 and Wing Chun and other Chinese martial arts since 1970. I took the time to study Cantonese at the University level and to emerse myself in Chinese MA culture. All that still doesn't make me an expert on every aspect of martial arts and WC in particular. I don't have the Holy Grail of WC knowledge. You write as if you do. You resort to negative criticisms of what of what myself and others do without posting a clip defending what you do. And please don't give me your usual go to a gym chant. I want YOU to show me how Wing Chun should be done.
I'm not a lawyer but I work doing research for one. Is the word discovery applicable here (a category of procedural devices employed by a party to a civil or criminal action, prior to trial, to require the adverse party to disclose information that is essential for the preparation of the requesting party's case and that the other party alone knows or possesses)? If I'm wrong please school me.
Since you talk as if you have the correct information please disclose the correct methodology. I'm not too proud to learn from anyone.
Until you show me at least a little something of what you do I'll consider you a wannabe omniscient, hateful, pathetic, sad, jock riding, trash talking, pseudo (I have some more colorful words that I won't use here) martial artist.
Please excuse iPhone keyboard typos.

[Phil Redmond]

Anytime Cheung does his super hyper speed chain punches he has to face and does. Unless anyone cares to argue that he is changing his lead 8-12 times per second..:rolleyes:

Also it seems pretty clear from just about any of his vids that his version (what he does in his vids) of Chun, many of the moves are done from a longer distance than most other Chun--at times so far out no real contact could be made.. Perhaps the source of why what he does is seen by some as longer range--since that's where he normally is.. Of course one can only go by the "demos" seen.
I see that you're Moy Yat lineage. When I was studying with Moy Yat at his apartment near Prospect Park he always gave Ah Hing the utmost respect. He even told me personally that Ah Hing was the best WC fighter under Yip Man. According to Victor Moy Yat told him the same thing. I introduced Moy Yat to Ah Hing (William Cheung Cheuk Hing) at dinner in NY's Chinatown in 1984. Moy Yat's top students were there including Pete Pajil. Sifu Pajil's school in Philadelphia is near me. I've visited his Mo Guan a few times and he is a real gentleman. He and I understand the relationship between Moy Yat and my Sifu. We never use disparaging remarks about either Sifu.
I'm in the "City" on weekends. Maybe we can meet so that I can show you the TWC theory of facing.
I just PM'd you my cell so that we can get together sometime and discuss things like grown men. I'll be waiting for your call.

[t_niehoff]

Your comment was expected and shows how little you know. Anything outside of your realm of understanding must be wrong, right?

No. It's obvious that Cheung has tried to "modify" what WCK he learned from TST and Yip to "fit" a predominantly outside (range) fighting game.

[t_niehoff]

I see that you're Moy Yat lineage. When I was studying with Moy Yat at his apartment near Prospect Park he always gave Ah Hing the utmost respect. He even told me personally that Ah Hing was the best WC fighter under Yip Man. According to Victor Moy Yat told him the same thing. I introduced Moy Yat to Ah Hing (William Cheung Cheuk Hing) at dinner in NY's Chinatown in 1984. Moy Yat's top students were there including Pete Pajil. Sifu Pajil's school in Philadelphia is near me. I've visited his Mo Guan a few times and he is a real gentleman. He and I understand the relationship between Moy Yat and my Sifu. We never use disparaging remarks about either Sifu.
I'm in the "City" on weekends. Maybe we can meet so that I can show you the TWC theory of facing.
I just PM'd you my cell so that we can get together sometime and discuss things like grown men. I'll be waiting for your call.

Phil, ALL any of Yip's guys did when fighting was chain punch up the middle. That's it. Look at the videos of the rooftop fights -- that's what Cheung did. He may have been very good at THAT, but that's it. And they were only fighting other teenagers who were equally unskilled.

You accept these STORIES because you want to believe. Why do you even need to believe?

What you won't accept -- because if you do it will completely undermine your whole world-view, your status, etc. -- is that skill in fighting comes ONLY from practicing fighting (the amount of quality sparring you do), and that you are only as good as your training/sparring partners. Once you realize that, then you will know that none of those guys COULD have been very good -- they simply didn't put in the right kind and the amount of work needed to develop even competent fighting skills.

And, if there was any question, the Boztepe fight put an end to that -- it proved he was just another TMA instructor that had no real fighting skill. And his "judo chop" shoot defense proves that he teaches nonsense.

[t_niehoff]

No offense taken. But look at it this way: he's avoiding the head on force by doing a small side step as the punch comes in on him. It all depends upon the commitment of the attacker. The more the attacker tries to penetrate with that punch, the more unnecessary it is to "step in and try to take ground" - and a simple side step will do the job.

And that "technique" simply won't work in fighting.

[goju]

Phil, ALL any of Yip's guys did when fighting was chain punch up the middle. That's it. Look at the videos of the rooftop fights -- that's what Cheung did. He may have been very good at THAT, but that's it. And they were only fighting other teenagers who were equally unskilled.

You accept these STORIES because you want to believe. Why do you even need to believe?

What you won't accept -- because if you do it will completely undermine your whole world-view, your status, etc. -- is that skill in fighting comes ONLY from practicing fighting (the amount of quality sparring you do), and that you are only as good as your training/sparring partners. Once you realize that, then you will know that none of those guys COULD have been very good -- they simply didn't put in the right kind and the amount of work needed to develop even competent fighting skills.

And, if there was any question, the Boztepe fight put an end to that -- it proved he was just another TMA instructor that had no real fighting skill. And his "judo chop" shoot defense proves that he teaches nonsense.


but why is that Cheung has produced quite a few guys who compete and win mind you and you for all your knowledge of how to do it right are stuck in a rec center training with god knows who in god knows what?

Sorry couldnt help myself since we are talking about beliefs here one would tend to sensibly believe the guy who shows his stuff and has produced competitors of some caliber over a guy who who hangs around in a rec center flipping his nunchucks around in the corner or something of the sort.

I really like the religious anaolgies used on this forum because as anyone knows there are numerous of the faithful who like to preach and convert people to what they believe is the true path of god. Often these people are frauds or crazy and provide nothing good or useful to the gullible who flock to them after they entice them with baseless claims.

[t_niehoff]

^ You are a troll. You haven't learned WCK, you don't practice WCK, yet post on a WCK forum. Go train WCK. You are a troll.

[k gledhill]

And that "technique" simply won't work in fighting.


So if a guy charges me and i side step in a face off with no contact ...it wont work ?

We train to angle back and to the sides for this so we can maintain facing and make a counter attack with punching force....seems like your unaware of this .
It only takes a few minutes to teach this and show its effectiveness. Comes from a Knife idea of tactical safe zones.....

Ask yourself, would you rather be in front of a guy charging at you with leading hand to grab so he can hit you with the other hand or shift so he had trouble facing and hitting you in balance with sufficient force ? simple question.

Would you prepare to stand behind a cape held for a potential charge from a bull ?

stay in the traffic lane, facing oncoming cars ?

Stay in front of a 250lb guy who is head down try to tackle you on a football field ?

wow thanks for the insight into your way of fighting ;)

[LoneTiger108]

That is "element" as in component, feature, etc. Pretty normal use of English. You might as well critique his use of punctuation marks because he seems to use the same symbols that you do.

BTW, Terence's use of the word "element" on these forums pre-dates yours by a few years.

TN
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=596013&postcount=102

LT108
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=820100&postcount=49

I never thought it was a competition :( But just looking at my post here in 2007 I distincively mention the 5 elements, but T's post in 2005 just mentions part of training as an 'element', not mentioning the 5 elements at all!

I have yet to see anyone mention the 5 elements in Wing Chun like I have tried to explore on another thread. And as someone else posted, I probably will never see it mentioned again! :eek:

[LoneTiger108]

As for this thread, I have to point out that there is a distinct difference in the term 'chiu yin' (facing) 'gin san' (frontal body/square-on) ;)

It seems that people are confusing them both, as I can maintain chiu yin while attacking you from my gin (frontal), pin (angled) or juk (side) san (body) alignments. Only the type of triangle changes from equilateral to scalene, but they're all chiu yin. :D:rolleyes:

[JPinAZ]

So if a guy charges me and i side step in a face off with no contact ...it wont work ?

We train to angle back and to the sides for this so we can maintain facing and make a counter attack with punching force....seems like your unaware of this .
It only takes a few minutes to teach this and show its effectiveness. Comes from a Knife idea of tactical safe zones.....

Ask yourself, would you rather be in front of a guy charging at you with leading hand to grab so he can hit you with the other hand or shift so he had trouble facing and hitting you in balance with sufficient force ? simple question.

Would you prepare to stand behind a cape held for a potential charge from a bull ?

stay in the traffic lane, facing oncoming cars ?

Stay in front of a 250lb guy who is head down try to tackle you on a football field ?

wow thanks for the insight into your way of fighting ;)

While I totally disagree with T that what GM Cheung does in that clip won't work (it will, many fighters step off the line of attack and then come in), I would say it's not my preferred method from a WC perspective.

Your analogy of standing in front of raging bulls, cars, and rushing lineman isn't even the same ballpark as having to deal with a straight jab. This sounds very inexperienced to me (no offense). Are you saying that you can't deal with a straight stiff lead without having to run away from it?!?! :eek:
This is taught from day one where I train - stand your ground (meaning, don't run away from the attack, side step needlessly, etc) and dominate the centerline position. Only when this fails must you 'change the line' with angled footwork.
If I can deal with the attack with proper body mechanics & structure, leverage and energy usage, why the hell would I need to run from it??

BTW, in case you didn't know, there is a big difference between a strong stiff lead and a bull/car/bus, etc. Even a good skilled boxers' stiff lead, it's just not the same ;)

[kung fu fighter]

I don't see any evidence of this "elastic recoil". If I rotate with a punch, my body doesn't automatically return to square-on, does yours?

Then you are not doing it correctly, you have to keep the feet pigeon toed while twisting at the hip

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So if a guy charges me and i side step in a face off with no contact ...it wont work?...... We train to angle back and to the sides for this so we can maintain facing and make a counter attack with punching force....seems like your unaware of this...Ask yourself, would you rather be in front of a guy charging at you with leading hand to grab so he can hit you with the other hand or shift so he had trouble facing and hitting you in balance with sufficient force? simple question." (kgledhill)

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

***GOOD POST, Kevin.

And as for JP's point about not backing away from a stiff jab, true, but it's best to cut punch through it, or pak it, or whatever, from a slight angle - if at all possible.

The only time you can completely hold your ground and do these things sucessfully is if you are considerably stronger than the opponent.

So you make contact with mon sao, a punch, a pak, or whatever and let your contact reflexes (developed through chi sao and related drills) tell you what you need to do, how and when you should angle, what footwork patterns to use, and so on.

And of course your visuals especially need to be on mark when there is no contact (or bridging) going on.

[sihing]

"So if a guy charges me and i side step in a face off with no contact ...it wont work?...... We train to angle back and to the sides for this so we can maintain facing and make a counter attack with punching force....seems like your unaware of this...Ask yourself, would you rather be in front of a guy charging at you with leading hand to grab so he can hit you with the other hand or shift so he had trouble facing and hitting you in balance with sufficient force? simple question."

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

***GOOD POST, Kevin.

And as for JP's point about not backing away from a stiff jab, true, but it's best to cut punch through it, or pak it, or whatever, from a slight angle - if at all possible.

The only time you can completely hold your ground and do these things sucessfully is if you are considerably stronger than the opponent.

So you make contact with mon sao, a punch, a pak, or whatever and let your contact reflexes (developed through chi sao and related drills) tell you what you need to do, how and when you should angle, what footwork patterns to use, and so on.

And of course your visuals especially need to be on mark when there is no contact (or bridging) going on.

Intersting post.

I agree with the idea of "cutting" lines from the outside. I've personally found that when one "cuts the line" while going forward the slight angle you describe above is already gained, it's a really tight angle. The thing about moving sideways first, then in, is that it is two actions, not one. In this case it would would be just better to strike from that sideways angle and not try to go in and hit then, as your hit is now behind in timing, you would have to have a great speed advantage vs your opponent to pull this off, trying to get two actions in before a strike is thrown. But if you throw the cutting strike as you coming in, it's all in one action. This is only achieved when the structure is developed and the mechanics are right, as the angle is already gain from your facing and stepping in practice. Also with the side stepping (and I found this happening allot in my TWC days), your angle is really severe, lessen the striking target as you are now right a the side of the guy, with maybe the ribs as a targets or side of the head, it's easier for them to cover up from that severe an angle IMO. Gary Lam would say this angle is more used for hiding, or closing (setting up standing grappling), rather than a striking angle.

As for your comment about being stronger than your opponent, well someone can physically be stronger than you (=he can lift more weight than you in a weight room), but that doesn't always translate to a fighting situation. If he's using his shoulders to support his punch, that is weak, as compared to someone that is using a connected structure, with power from the legs coming into it. Most people cannot bench press or military press as much as they can squat, learn to use that support and power and you have fighting strength in a small package.

James

P.S. Not saying side stepping is out of the question, as of course you may need to do just this, but as JP said you don't do it just to do it, one has to feel the need to do it when necessary.
Generally in WSL line, the Toi ma or pushed step back is done at a tight angle, it's back and slightly sideways, not a straight side step, keeping the angle tight, and the striking targets(torso) in range.

[Wayfaring]

Intersting post.

I agree with the idea of "cutting" lines from the outside. I've personally found that when one "cuts the line" while going forward the slight angle you describe above is already gained, it's a really tight angle. The thing about moving sideways first, then in, is that it is two actions, not one. In this case it would would be just better to strike from that sideways angle and not try to go in and hit then, as your hit is now behind in timing, you would have to have a great speed advantage vs your opponent to pull this off, trying to get two actions in before a strike is thrown. But if you throw the cutting strike as you coming in, it's all in one action. This is only achieved when the structure is developed and the mechanics are right, as the angle is already gain from your facing and stepping in practice. Also with the side stepping (and I found this happening allot in my TWC days), your angle is really severe, lessen the striking target as you are now right a the side of the guy, with maybe the ribs as a targets or side of the head, it's easier for them to cover up from that severe an angle IMO. Gary Lam would say this angle is more used for hiding, or closing (setting up standing grappling), rather than a striking angle.

As for your comment about being stronger than your opponent, well someone can physically be stronger than you (=he can lift more weight than you in a weight room), but that doesn't always translate to a fighting situation. If he's using his shoulders to support his punch, that is weak, as compared to someone that is using a connected structure, with power from the legs coming into it. Most people cannot bench press or military press as much as they can squat, learn to use that support and power and you have fighting strength in a small package.

James

P.S. Not saying side stepping is out of the question, as of course you may need to do just this, but as JP said you don't do it just to do it, one has to feel the need to do it when necessary.
Generally in WSL line, the Toi ma or pushed step back is done at a tight angle, it's back and slightly sideways, not a straight side step, keeping the angle tight, and the striking targets(torso) in range.

On the strategy with stiff jabs - this is a fighters skill. You can do a number of things:

1) Avoid it with footwork
2) Avoid it with head movment / slip it
3) Diffuse it or absorb it

Good boxers employ these strategies. I think that good WCK boxers would employ similar strategies, as there is a limited amount of things to do that are right in a live environment. I also have the opinion that which of the 3 you employ are more a matter of "feel" or "body knowledge" in live environments.

[Wayfaring]

Your analogy of standing in front of raging bulls, cars, and rushing lineman isn't even the same ballpark as having to deal with a straight jab. This sounds very inexperienced to me (no offense). Are you saying that you can't deal with a straight stiff lead without having to run away from it?!?! :eek:

3 tactics available without running away:

1) Stuff it with structure - boxers do this too.
2) Slip - it's available to avoid contact with movement w/o giving up ground
3) Strike first, at a better angle, or harder.



This is taught from day one where I train - stand your ground (meaning, don't run away from the attack, side step needlessly, etc) and dominate the centerline position. Only when this fails must you 'change the line' with angled footwork.
If I can deal with the attack with proper body mechanics & structure, leverage and energy usage, why the hell would I need to run from it??

IMO a jab is a little longer range usually, and it's not necessary to run from it, simply ensure you are covered (high gate covered) and your opponent can't advance in on the lines the jab opens up.


BTW, in case you didn't know, there is a big difference between a strong stiff lead and a bull/car/bus, etc. Even a good skilled boxers' stiff lead, it's just not the same ;)
Agreed.

[YungChun]

When I was studying with Moy Yat at his apartment near Prospect Park he always gave Ah Hing the utmost respect. He even told me personally that Ah Hing was the best WC fighter under Yip Man. According to Victor Moy Yat told him the same thing. I introduced Moy Yat to Ah Hing (William Cheung Cheuk Hing) at dinner in NY's Chinatown in 1984.

So MoyYat told you William was the best fighter and you introduced MoyYat to William later in 1984????

Well I'll tell you what MoyYat told me about William:

He told me that William, who was welcomed into his school as a Brother and friend, proceeded to peddle his line of TWC superiority BS to MoyYat's students in an attempt to steal them away from MoyYat.. William apparently succeeded in at least a couple of cases.. As a result Sifu seemed somewhat hurt by this and I never saw nor heard of William returning afterward..

You should also know that over the years the Moy curriculum continued to evolve and improve..

MoyYat and Mickey Chan (DaiSiHing and a very bright guy--Chemical Engineer by trade) took a painstaking second look at everything in the art, how it was taught, researching all aspects as was possible.. In effect they took it apart and put it (the core curriculum) back together again, in an attempt to improve and pass the art to students more effectively..

This no doubt resulted in an improved curriculum and learning experience for students as time went on.. Personally, I have no complaints and I am proud to have had access to what was a great learning experience from my time with the family... Many years later I continued to learn on my own but I consider myself fortunate to have learned the base of Chun training I did--and especially so when seeing the majority of what else is out there..

[sihing]

On the strategy with stiff jabs - this is a fighters skill. You can do a number of things:

1) Avoid it with footwork
2) Avoid it with head movment / slip it
3) Diffuse it or absorb it

Good boxers employ these strategies. I think that good WCK boxers would employ similar strategies, as there is a limited amount of things to do that are right in a live environment. I also have the opinion that which of the 3 you employ are more a matter of "feel" or "body knowledge" in live environments.

IMO out of all the choices listed above, #3 is the hardest to learn. You generally can't successfully diffuse or absorb a good punch with no learned structure, or will a stiff arm out there do?

Everything in fighting is based on a variety of variables, none of which can be discussed on a forum with total understanding by all, all one can do is explain the concept behind what one is doing or training. One can of course just move away whenever someone begins to attack you, this is always an option. But IMO its the easiest of all to do, once one gains understanding and ability with distance control and improves their perception skills(of course depending on the skills of the attacker as well, I'm sure Pacman's jab is not as easy as other's jabs..).

In WC we generally want to get in close, crowd or jam the guy up so his structure & ability to attack is effected. So if you move away upon being attacked this is anti WC tactics, so why practice WC then? IMO most would be surprised if they were attacked while attacking, and can work if the timing is right combined with the WC body behind it. So for me this is what I practice and the skill I want to achieve, attacking the attach rather than running. WC requires courage to enter the zone.

gotta run..lol

James

[Phil Redmond]

Phil, ALL any of Yip's guys did when fighting was chain punch up the middle. That's it. Look at the videos of the rooftop fights -- that's what Cheung did. He may have been very good at THAT, but that's it. And they were only fighting other teenagers who were equally unskilled. Not all were kids. Trust me. He even fought in Australia defending the local Chinese community there. Ask Hawkins Cheung about one incident on OZ.


And, if there was any question, the Boztepe fight put an end to that -- it proved he was just another TMA instructor that had no real fighting skill......
That's a weak argument. First of all the footage was edited. A least that's what Inside Kung Fu said after checking it out back then. Also, let's say he lost the so called "fight". That proves nothing. MMA guys lose fights. Boxers lose fights. Does that mean they can't fight? You called someone a troll here yet you live in a glass house. ;)

[Phil Redmond]

So MoyYat told you William was the best fighter and you introduced MoyYat to William later in 1984????
I arranged the meeting, introduced whatever. MY chose the restaurant.
Yes, I heard that from Moy Yat's mouth when his school was called Ding Leg at his Brooklyn apartment.
Only then I didn't know who Ah Hing was.


Well I'll tell you what MoyYat told me about William:

He told me that William, who was welcomed into his school as a Brother and friend, proceeded to peddle his line of TWC superiority BS to MoyYat's students in an attempt to steal them away from MoyYat.. William apparently succeeded in at least a couple of cases.. As a result Sifu seemed somewhat hurt by this and I never saw nor heard of William returning afterward..

I went to the East Broadway school after dinner with Moy Yat and William Cheung. Pete Pajil was also there. We took pictures and the 2 Sifus talked a while. Moy always referred to William Cheung as Si-Hing the whole time. There was no animosity during the whole event. I left with William Cheung after the meeting and none of what you say happened.
p.s. you never hear me talking disparagingly about any of my WC seniors (and I know some not so nice things about a few of them). But that's just me.

btw, Are you a Sifu? If so it's a sad state of affairs when a Sifu writes disparaging remarks about a senior on a public forum for all, including his students to see. But I guess we WC people are known to talk and trash each other but don't even try to produce good fighters. ;)

[YungChun]

I left with William Cheung after the meeting and none of what you say happened.

So?

Who said when this happened? I'm telling you what I was told.. Some students obviously did "switch"... lol



p.s. you never hear me talking disparagingly about any of my WC seniors (and I know some not so nice things about a few of them). But that's just me.

And you've never heard me speak ill of my 'seniors' either--I don't consider Cheung my senior..



btw, Are you a Sifu? If so it's a sad state of affairs when a Sifu writes disparaging remarks about a senior on a public forum for all, including his students to see. But I guess we WC people are known to talk and trash each other but don't even try to produce good fighters. ;)


Not sure what all that is supposed to mean or that I care.. Suffice it to say I simply relate what I was told..and my experience..

More Chun "seniors" should be trying to train their students realistically and I advocate doing same.

[SAAMAG]

And that "technique" simply won't work in fighting.

Sidestepping a punch doesn't work? Really? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a sidestep is in this case....but why is it then when I slip/side step against straight punches it works nearly every time? Why is it that tactic is taught in almost every striking art known to man?

[Phil Redmond]

So? Who said when this happened? I'm telling you what I was told.. Some students obviously did "switch"... lol
The fact that it didn't happen is what is important. Like I said. I was there during that "only" meeting. People are going to "switch" regardless. It happens in all MAs



And you've never heard me speak ill of my 'seniors' either--I don't consider Cheung my senior..
Well, Moy Yat did. I'm not sure if you were a student or grand student of MY but that makes Cheung your senior whether you like it or not. One of the things that Sifu Pete Pajil and I have in common is that we understand the familial relationships in our WC family.

[SAAMAG]

I think that's one of the problems with my culture. The extremes of "saving face" and the whole "showing respect" to seniors simply because they were there first.

A senior is someone in my definition as someone who has more skill and experience then me in the chosen field of study. If one of those two elements is missing--then they are my peer or subordinate.

[YungChun]

The fact that it didn't happen is what is important. Like I said. I was there during that "only" meeting. People are going to "switch" regardless. It happens in all MAs

It didn't happen when at dinner? Again so what?

It's what I was told.. I believe it and I am saying that.......

I'm sure I'm not the only one who knew this and whether you already knew or don't accept it as true is not my concern.



Well, Moy Yat did. I'm not sure if you were a student or grand student of MY but that makes Cheung your senior whether you like it or not. One of the things that Sifu Pete Pajil and I have in common is that we understand the familial relationships in our WC family.

Given the current state of affairs I follow my own rules not yours not some unwritten code; The truth is the light.

[t_niehoff]

Not all were kids. Trust me. He even fought in Australia defending the local Chinese community there. Ask Hawkins Cheung about one incident on OZ.


More STORIES? Phil, why do you HAVE to rely on STORIES as THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE that Cheung had decent fighting skill? Doesn't that tell you something. Doesn't that show you how WEAK your evidence is? I don't need to rely on stories to KNOW the skill level of my MMA coach or my BJJ instructor.



That's a weak argument. First of all the footage was edited. A least that's what Inside Kung Fu said after checking it out back then. Also, let's say he lost the so called "fight". That proves nothing. MMA guys lose fights. Boxers lose fights. Does that mean they can't fight? You called someone a troll here yet you live in a glass house. ;)

Of course losing a fight doesn't mean you don't have skill -- depending on both HOW you lose and WHO you lose to. And -- you continue to use this false argument -- Chueng is not like a boxer or MMA fighter in that we have proof they have fighting skill because we can SEE for ourselves their other fights, we can see how they won and who they fought.

You've really been brainwashed, haven't you?

[t_niehoff]

Sidestepping a punch doesn't work? Really? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a sidestep is in this case....but why is it then when I slip/side step against straight punches it works nearly every time? Why is it that tactic is taught in almost every striking art known to man?

The sidestep can work (though the way Cheung does it is poor). But the technique shown wasn't simply a sidestep, was it?

The technique shown was a lop sao where Cheung GRABBED THE PUNCH OUT OF THE AIR and held onto it!

I guess all you people who think that technique will work spar with people who throw really slow, weak punches or just punch and hold their arm out there (like the stooge in the video).

Seriously, does anyone here ever f#cking spar? Because anyone who didn't recognize immediately what nonsense this was simply hasn't put in very much work.

[k gledhill]

The sidestep can work (though the way Cheung does it is poor). But the technique shown wasn't simply a sidestep, was it?

The technique shown was a lop sao where Cheung GRABBED THE PUNCH OUT OF THE AIR and held onto it!

I guess all you people who think that technique will work spar with people who throw really slow, weak punches or just punch and hold their arm out there (like the stooge in the video).

Seriously, does anyone here ever f#cking spar? Because anyone who didn't recognize immediately what nonsense this was simply hasn't put in very much work.

So NOW it works, but before it didn't I see a pattern here...If W Cheung does it its no good ...but If Terence does it its okay :D

[YungChun]

Right grabbing $hit out of the air is perfectly reasonable.. I mean that's how punches are thrown right? It doesn't matter how the side step is done right? It doesn't matter if you train to do things like you have magical powers even if it will never ever happen in actual fighting..I mean that's a good use of training time right? Anyone stupid enough to train that way deserves what they get.

Terence stop confusing people saying $hit can work if used realistically but not work in some cartoonistic manner.. Cartoon techniques are cool and precious few know the difference anyway...

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's called a half side step - what William Cheung does on that vid.

[goju]

Right grabbing $hit out of the air is perfectly reasonable.. ..

about as resonable as a small elderly man controlling a much larger young fellow by holding his arm after he shows him what hand he is going to punch with:eek:

[YungChun]

about as resonable as a small elderly man controlling a much larger young fellow by holding his arm after he shows him what hand he is going to punch with:eek:

One has to do with reading and intercepting an attack the other ChiSao does not.. Now can you get that through your thick head?

The question is if the technique is viable......

I know you don't understand logic, or choose not to but that's how it works..

Now, go look in the phone book for Chun classes and at least try 1 free class before posting again! Silly troll.

[goju]

One has to do with reading and intercepting an attack the other ChiSao does not.. Now can you get that through your thick head?

I know you don't understand logic, or choose not to but that's how it works..

Now, go look in the phone book for Chun classes and at least try 1 free class before posting again! Silly troll.

i understand that the larger gentlemen simply could have used his size and strength to barrel through that arm control and collapsed the older man like a house of cards

if thats the real stuff then forget when i asked you to provide more:eek:

[YungChun]

i understand that the larger gentlemen simply could have used his size and strength to barrel through that arm control and collapsed the older man like a house of cards if thats the real stuff then forget when i asked you to provide more:eek:

You are ignorant of what is being trained and have no reference point to go by.. The ChiSao you saw incorporates key elements of control--that means from incontact... It's not about intercepting attacks despite the playing seen and you have no understanding of the material.. If you had an IQ over 90 you would be learning not pontificating ignorance.

Now whether you are simply too stupid to know the difference among these things or you're just an azzhole, it matters not.. All you do is post moronic comments..

I will not attempt to educate you further and frankly I don't know if you could be educated at all.. You are a foolish troll who hasn't taken a single class of Chun and you are willing to share your lack of understanding and stupidity all too often..

I won't waste any more time on your sorry Purple Rain ass..now shew, back to the rock from under which you sprang..

[SAAMAG]

The sidestep can work (though the way Cheung does it is poor). But the technique shown wasn't simply a sidestep, was it?

The technique shown was a lop sao where Cheung GRABBED THE PUNCH OUT OF THE AIR and held onto it!

I guess all you people who think that technique will work spar with people who throw really slow, weak punches or just punch and hold their arm out there (like the stooge in the video).

Seriously, does anyone here ever f#cking spar? Because anyone who didn't recognize immediately what nonsense this was simply hasn't put in very much work.

What video are you talking about? I just responded to the fact that you said someone side stepping a punch doesn't work. So perhaps I'm not getting the full picture.

Grabbing a good punch out of the air is tough, and the disparity in skill levels needs to be pretty vast for that to happen. Two equally skilled people probably wouldn't be doing anything like that.

That--and one must remember that lap sao isn't something (in my experience) that is a primary move, it's secondary only after contact is made on the arm.

[t_niehoff]

What video are you talking about? I just responded to the fact that you said someone side stepping a punch doesn't work. So perhaps I'm not getting the full picture.


This is the link to the post that I was referencing:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061332&postcount=27



Grabbing a good punch out of the air is tough, and the disparity in skill levels needs to be pretty vast for that to happen. Two equally skilled people probably wouldn't be doing anything like that.

That--and one must remember that lap sao isn't something (in my experience) that is a primary move, it's secondary only after contact is made on the arm.

You look at the technique Cheung demos and decide for yourself.

[t_niehoff]

So NOW it works, but before it didn't I see a pattern here...If W Cheung does it its no good ...but If Terence does it its okay :D

No, as I said, it won't work. A sidestep can work but Cheung isn't doing just a sidestep -- he's doing a lop sao with a side step and THAT (the whole thing as demonstrated) won't work. Grabbing punches out of the air and holding onto them won't work in fighting. It's fantasy fu -- like most of what Cheung teaches (judo chop!).

Even how Cheung does/teaches the sidestep is really poor. You can't sidestep a punch -- it moves too fast (your opponent's hand moves faster than your body). What you sidestep is HIS step, his body movement (your body can move as fast as his body) -- as he steps, you step.

There is so much wrong with that clip that it should be entitled "how not to do WCK."

[t_niehoff]

Right grabbing $hit out of the air is perfectly reasonable.. I mean that's how punches are thrown right? It doesn't matter how the side step is done right? It doesn't matter if you train to do things like you have magical powers even if it will never ever happen in actual fighting..I mean that's a good use of training time right? Anyone stupid enough to train that way deserves what they get.


There is a very simple test for bullsh1t: do you SEE it used successfully on a consistent basis in realistic sparring (preferably with a non-WCK practitoner)? If not, then it is bullsh1t.

[SAAMAG]

This is the link to the post that I was referencing:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061332&postcount=27



You look at the technique Cheung demos and decide for yourself.


No, as I said, it won't work. A sidestep can work but Cheung isn't doing just a sidestep -- he's doing a lop sao with a side step and THAT (the whole thing as demonstrated) won't work. Grabbing punches out of the air and holding onto them won't work in fighting. It's fantasy fu -- like most of what Cheung teaches (judo chop!).

Even how Cheung does/teaches the sidestep is really poor. You can't sidestep a punch -- it moves too fast (your opponent's hand moves faster than your body). What you sidestep is HIS step, his body movement (your body can move as fast as his body) -- as he steps, you step.

There is so much wrong with that clip that it should be entitled "how not to do WCK."

Alright I see what you're talking about now.

I was actually just working on something like this with a WC cohort of mine--except I was drilling him in MT at the time. So this is something that in broad form is done in fighting regardless of system.

The idea of sidestepping or slipping is something that boxers, kickboxers, and many striking fighters use, yes--wing chun too. What Cheung is going here isn't anything that I feel is "bad" persay out. He's demonstrating something in slow motion to illustrate it--not to show it in live action.

I do feel that one shouldn't try to catch the wrist, but what he's doing is almost a pak/gam/lap at the elbow, so essentially even if the lead punch is pulled back quickly--he's following the elbow which will still be in place for the most part even upon punch retraction. If the punch is pulled back then great---you just follow the elbow back in pressing in a diagonal trap and pursue whatever counterpunch or kick you want to do. But personally I'd just use a pak to gam on the elbow while stepping into them.

So while the exact method that he's using it I may not do--the idea that he's using isn't something foreign and isn't something that I would say is impossible. That said...someone who is a good and fast puncher, isn't going to leave the arm and they're not going to stay in one place. The whole idea of stick and move comes to mind--and it's something I was stressing in the drills I was working with my colleague the other night...after the punch you need to move. Don't sit in one place, etc etc.

[t_niehoff]

Alright I see what you're talking about now.

I was actually just working on something like this with a WC cohort of mine--except I was drilling him in MT at the time. So this is something that in broad form is done in fighting regardless of system.


I disagree.



The idea of sidestepping or slipping is something that boxers, kickboxers, and many striking fighters use,


Side stepping and slipping are two different things.



yes--wing chun too.


WCK's method is different.



What Cheung is going here isn't anything that I feel is "bad" persay out. He's demonstrating something in slow motion to illustrate it--not to show it in live action.


EVERYTHING Chueng does in that clip is bad. Everything. From standing still awaiting the punch, to his side step, to his lop sao, to his chain punching, etc. All crap. As I said, the clip should be labelled "How NOT to do WCK."

Yeah, and it is always a good idea to demonstrate something in ways that won't work to get your point across. ;)



I do feel that one shouldn't try to catch the wrist, but what he's doing is almost a pak/gam/lap at the elbow, so essentially even if the lead punch is pulled back quickly--he's following the elbow which will still be in place for the most part even upon punch retraction. If the punch is pulled back then great---you just follow the elbow back in pressing in a diagonal trap and pursue whatever counterpunch or kick you want to do. But personally I'd just use a pak to gam on the elbow while stepping into them.


Pure nonsense. WTF do you think your opponent will be doing?



So while the exact method that he's using it I may not do--the idea that he's using isn't something foreign and isn't something that I would say is impossible. That said...someone who is a good and fast puncher, isn't going to leave the arm and they're not going to stay in one place. The whole idea of stick and move comes to mind--and it's something I was stressing in the drills I was working with my colleague the other night...after the punch you need to move. Don't sit in one place, etc etc.

Teaching sh1t like that is teaching people to fail.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Grabbing a good punch out of the air is tough, and the disparity in skill levels needs to be pretty vast for that to happen. Two equally skilled people probably wouldn't be doing anything like that.

That--and one must remember that lap sao isn't something (in my experience) that is a primary move, it's secondary only after contact is made on the arm." (Van)

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

***BINGO. Notice I wrote in that previous post that this was a simple and basic example.

The lop is NOT the primary move in advanced TWC - and the clown prince of trolls took the bait.

Here's something more advanced. The lop comes after a pak - and is more of a guiding lop than a grab.

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

I was using the first one as a basic example of squaring up the centerline as part of fan sao
(follow up) technique. As in FACING...you know, the title of the thread. :cool:

But the clown of all clowns, Mr. "I can't do 5hit and therefore I'll never post a vid of my own" decided to take the keyboard warrior football and try and run down the field with it - but towards his own goal line. :rolleyes: :eek: :D

[Peaceful Orchid]

This is the link to the post that I was referencing:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061332&postcount=27



You look at the technique Cheung demos and decide for yourself.

Is that the same guy who was showing this goofball technique?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2qOwhHdHCc&feature=related

[shawchemical]

There is a very simple test for bullsh1t: do you SEE it used successfully on a consistent basis in realistic sparring (preferably with a non-WCK practitoner)? If not, then it is bullsh1t.

That is NOT the test.

The test is can YOU the practitioner use it in those scenarios?

What other people do is hardly the point in your own training. Just because someone can do something, with a high level of proficiency, does not mean that you, after watching a video or going to 1 seminar, will be able to do it.

If what other people do all the time is all that counts, surely guys like bas rutten, genki sudo, lyoto machida, etc would never have made the big leagues.

The major problem in all of these discussions is terrence's fantasy land he lives in. In which only what he says goes, and he is the sole arbiter of fact, applicability and usefulness for every single person worldwide.

Despite all of this, he doesn't seem to do any training whatsoever.

Fkn armchair warriors.

[Peaceful Orchid]

Here something more advanced. The lop comes after a pak - and is more of a guiding lop than a grab.

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

Why is he teaching punches that are only arm punches and will have no power?

[Ultimatewingchun]

He's emphasizing the defense in this second vid - not the offense. I know because I organized and ran that seminar (one seminar amoungst about 25 or so, as a matter of fact).

People were asking about how to defend against this or that punching attack - and GM Cheung focused primarily on that.

Once you understand the strategy, principles, and techniques to be used to gain a good position in these scenarios - developing power and penetration on the punches will come easier and be more efficient.

But trolls wouldn't know about these things, now would they?

[t_niehoff]

That is NOT the test.

The test is can YOU the practitioner use it in those scenarios?

What other people do is hardly the point in your own training. Just because someone can do something, with a high level of proficiency, does not mean that you, after watching a video or going to 1 seminar, will be able to do it.

If what other people do all the time is all that counts, surely guys like bas rutten, genki sudo, lyoto machida, etc would never have made the big leagues.

The major problem in all of these discussions is terrence's fantasy land he lives in. In which only what he says goes, and he is the sole arbiter of fact, applicability and usefulness for every single person worldwide.

Despite all of this, he doesn't seem to do any training whatsoever.

Fkn armchair warriors.

You are not very bright.

The pros don't do anything "different" than what beginners do -- they just do it a lot better. That's the nature of functional (sport) training: everyone uses the same fundamental skills. A single leg is a single leg. It's how well you do it (your performance level) -- your performance level doing the same things -- that separate skill levels.

But you aren't bright enough to see that.

And, I said the test for bullsh1t was "do you SEE it used successfully on a consistent basis in realistic sparring?" Well, if you are doing it, then aren't you seeing it used successfully on a consistent basis in realistic sparring?

If you see every f#cking wrestler in the world pulling off sprawls, doesn't that tell you that it isn't bullsh1t? As opposed, for example, to Cheung's judo chop single leg defense?

Idiot.

[t_niehoff]

Why is he teaching punches that are only arm punches and will have no power?

Because that is all he can do.

[t_niehoff]

"Grabbing a good punch out of the air is tough, and the disparity in skill levels needs to be pretty vast for that to happen. Two equally skilled people probably wouldn't be doing anything like that.

That--and one must remember that lap sao isn't something (in my experience) that is a primary move, it's secondary only after contact is made on the arm." (Van)

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

***BINGO. Notice I wrote in that previous post that this was a simple and basic example.

The lop is NOT the primary move in advanced TWC - and the clown prince of trolls took the bait.

Here's something more advanced. The lop comes after a pak - and is more of a guiding lop than a grab.

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

I was using the first one as a basic example of squaring up the centerline as part of fan sao
(follow up) technique. As in FACING...you know, the title of the thread. :cool:

But the clown of all clowns, Mr. "I can't do 5hit and therefore I'll never post a vid of my own" decided to take the keyboard warrior football and try and run down the field with it - but towards his own goal line. :rolleyes: :eek: :D

Victor, that clip is just as bad as the other ("more advanced"! LOL!). It's complete nonsense. It's the judo chop take down defense all over again.

Yes, it makes great sense to show techniques -- like this "covering of the double jab" -- that won't work to demonstrate "proper facing." Brilliant.

Cheung seems great at showing how not to do WCK. And I guess that is why his students are so good at not being able to make any of it work!

[Peaceful Orchid]

He's emphasizing the defense in this second vid - not the offense. I know because I organized and ran that seminar (one seminar amoungst about 25 or so, as a matter of fact).

People were asking about how to defend against this or that punching attack - and GM Cheung focused primarily on that.

Once you understand the strategy, principles, and techniques to be used to gain a good position in these scenarios - developing power and penetration on the punches will come easier and be more efficient.

But why demonstrate the punching part in a manner that wouldn't work. If he knew how to do it correctly, why not show that part in the correct manner also instead of doing in wrong?

[k gledhill]

No, as I said, it won't work. A sidestep can work but Cheung isn't doing just a sidestep -- he's doing a lop sao with a side step and THAT (the whole thing as demonstrated) won't work. Grabbing punches out of the air and holding onto them won't work in fighting. It's fantasy fu -- like most of what Cheung teaches (judo chop!).

Even how Cheung does/teaches the sidestep is really poor. You can't sidestep a punch -- it moves too fast (your opponent's hand moves faster than your body). What you sidestep is HIS step, his body movement (your body can move as fast as his body) -- as he steps, you step.

There is so much wrong with that clip that it should be entitled "how not to do WCK."

So show us a clip bad boy...:D

[anerlich]

But why demonstrate the punching part in a manner that wouldn't work. If he knew how to do it correctly, why not show that part in the correct manner also instead of doing in wrong?

Because he likes to feed nameless internet trolls like yourself.

[shawchemical]

You are not very bright.

The pros don't do anything "different" than what beginners do -- they just do it a lot better. That's the nature of functional (sport) training: everyone uses the same fundamental skills. A single leg is a single leg. It's how well you do it (your performance level) -- your performance level doing the same things -- that separate skill levels.

But you aren't bright enough to see that.

And, I said the test for bullsh1t was "do you SEE it used successfully on a consistent basis in realistic sparring?" Well, if you are doing it, then aren't you seeing it used successfully on a consistent basis in realistic sparring?

If you see every f#cking wrestler in the world pulling off sprawls, doesn't that tell you that it isn't bullsh1t? As opposed, for example, to Cheung's judo chop single leg defense?

Idiot.

Moron. Go back and re read. You missed the point.

Go to the back of the class. Again, the test is NOT do you see it being done, it is can YOU DO it yourself. Otherwise you live in a pathetic little fantasy land - oh ****, i've let your secret out dipsh.it. Sorry.

[SAAMAG]

I disagree....Side stepping and slipping are two different things...WCK's method is different...EVERYTHING Chueng does in that clip is bad. Everything. From standing still awaiting the punch, to his side step, to his lop sao, to his chain punching, etc. All crap. As I said, the clip should be labelled "How NOT to do WCK."...Yeah, and it is always a good idea to demonstrate something in ways that won't work to get your point across. ;)...Pure nonsense. WTF do you think your opponent will be doing?...Teaching sh1t like that is teaching people to fail.

Well you're right that slipping and sidestepping are two distinct things, but they're often done together as well. I tend to slip and step to gain better angles or counters.

As far as standing still is concerned...it's a demonstration of one particular aspect. I probably just don't feel it's a big deal to make a fuss over him standing still. When I show a technique, I have one of the guys put on their gloves and try to hit me, I show it to them first in slower motion, then in real time with real intent. I do this because (1) I can, and (2) to assure my guys that the technique is functional. That said, Cheungs older and shouldn't have to spar or fight in order to demonstrate something in order for it to be viable. If they train properly, the guys will figure that out on their own when they apply it in live games & sparring. As for the rest, everyone already knows how I feel about chain punching (ack!).

But the last part of your post kinda confuses me. Are you saying that teaching someone as Cheung is doing is teaching them to fail or that my teaching people to move after they strike is teaching them to fail?

[SAAMAG]

Moron. Go back and re read. You missed the point.

Go to the back of the class. Again, the test is NOT do you see it being done, it is can YOU DO it yourself. Otherwise you live in a pathetic little fantasy land - oh ****, i've let your secret out dipsh.it. Sorry.

You do realize you've just parroted Terence. He's the one that usually says this. So why are you telling someone something they themselves have said time and again in the past?

[shawchemical]

You do realize you've just parroted Terence. He's the one that usually says this. So why are you telling someone something they themselves have said time and again in the past?

Yes, I realise that, but i was letting him tie himself in knots so i could point out his contradictions to him. thanks for spoiling the game

xD

[SAAMAG]

Yes, I realise that, but i was letting him tie himself in knots so i could point out his contradictions to him. thanks for spoiling the game

xD

My bad. Lol

[jeetsao]

No comment on the William Cheung video. My comment concerns the recurring argument that sparring is the be all and end all in testing a system or technique. While sparring has value it is still unrealistic. Sparring, as seems to be used on these posts adopts a sport, mma mentality. In this type of training both consent to the rules and both know that the other has some training. Sparring is not an attack scenario and has little resemblance to self defense. There is a vast difference in a street thug taking a swing at what he believes is a victim and two people employing strategy in a fight that each has consented to.

[SAAMAG]

Ok. So you propose that sparring is unrealistic. What methods do you feel trump sparring in terms of building applicable skill in fighting?

[YungChun]

Ok. So you propose that sparring is unrealistic. What methods do you feel trump sparring in terms of building applicable skill in fighting?

There's all kinds of sparring, each kind normally has some kind of limitations.. That said, it is the core functional activity.. This means that it is the most realistic type of functional practice..if done correctly. Fighting, let's call it, with another trained fighter trumps all other kinds of activities, none are more demanding, none are more realistic save that of a fight with another trained fighter with no gear and no rules..

The exception or other side of the coin is scenario training... Where a trainee is presented with a scenario, like in a bar, parking lot, car, and they are forced to deal with a threat.. This kind of training can actually address more elements than can sparring, such as de-escalation, multiple threats, use of weapons, environmental factors, found weapons, etc.. Still in this kind of training it's more a game than a match...

In the end anyone who wishes to really get good at fighting must fight and do so in the most realistic manner possible and with as wide a variety of partners as possible..

And as Terence says, very correctly, for the best results you need to keep taking yourself out of your comfort zone.. So if you always spar with the same three guys and you can now beat them all, or even if you can't you need to seek out better and different partners in order to continue to grow.

Of course this assumes one is young enough and healthy enough for this kind of training... Otherwise it could be hazardous to your health.. :)

[jeetsao]

Ok. So you propose that sparring is unrealistic. What methods do you feel trump sparring in terms of building applicable skill in fighting?

Lets deal with self defense skill. In most cases a 110 pound woman will be unable to prevail against a beginner male mma student in the 200 pound range in a sparring situation. However if she has learned a sense of striking distance, speed, accuracy and awareness she may be able to escape a threat with a properly executed finger strike to the eyes or maybe a knee to the groin(or both) These simple techniques require skill to execute non telegraphically and with accuracy. These skills can be developed in a number of ways. Sparring may help but it is not the test of the effectiveness of the techniques in self defense.

[YungChun]

Lets deal with self defense skill. In most cases a 110 pound woman will be unable to prevail against a beginner male mma student in the 200 pound range in a sparring situation. However if she has learned a sense of striking distance, speed, accuracy and awareness she may be able to escape a threat with a properly executed finger strike to the eyes or maybe a knee to the groin(or both) These simple techniques require skill to execute non telegraphically and with accuracy. These skills can be developed in a number of ways. Sparring may help but it is not the test of the effectiveness of the techniques in self defense.

The statistics say you're wrong.. While it may be possible for a woman to prevail in the street using the good old eye poke the stats say it's a low % move..

A small woman must do what anyone else must do and that is develop a range of skills actually fighting.. Anything less will result in less skill and a lessoned chance of success.. What you're missing is the FACT that the same skills that she or he will use in fighting/sparring are the same skills he or she will be using in a "self defense" situation save some specialized tactics that are better trained in scenario work..

Moreover there is no way for anyone to train these "death moves" realistically--this is an old argument--and because of these limitations of training these moves, based on real evidence, work far less often then those who promote them suggest... Real skills work all the time..

Now, if someone can only invest a couple of weekends per year to train then "learning" some of these moves may be useful, like raking the eyes, groin attacks, carrying a weapon, learning sound street tactical elements. Still, if you look at modern trainers who conduct these short term classes they focus far more on gross motor high % moves like use of knees, palms and elbows, and actually doing that in training, not the kiss-o-death eye poke....

I have no problem with perfection work, supplementary conditioning work, I think that is important too... But, if you want someone to have the best chance of survival you train them to fight by fighting, and you also do scenario and tactical work.. There is very simply no shortcut no matter how much people want there to be one.

[SAAMAG]

There's all kinds of sparring, each kind normally has some kind of limitations.. That said, it is the core functional activity.. This means that it is the most realistic type of functional practice..if done correctly. Fighting, let's call it, with another trained fighter trumps all other kinds of activities, none are more demanding, none are more realistic save that of a fight with another trained fighter with no gear and no rules..

The exception or other side of the coin is scenario training... Where a trainee is presented with a scenario, like in a bar, parking lot, car, and they are forced to deal with a threat.. This kind of training can actually address more elements than can sparring, such as de-escalation, multiple threats, use of weapons, environmental factors, found weapons, etc.. Still in this kind of training it's more a game than a match...

In the end anyone who wishes to really get good at fighting must fight and do so in the most realistic manner possible and with as wide a variety of partners as possible..

And as Terence says, very correctly, for the best results you need to keep taking yourself out of your comfort zone.. So if you always spar with the same three guys and you can now beat them all, or even if you can't you need to seek out better and different partners in order to continue to grow.

Of course this assumes one is young enough and healthy enough for this kind of training... Otherwise it could be hazardous to your health.. :)

Well the question was meant more for the person who asserted that there's some better way of learning to apply your skills than sparring. But in your response I agree on the whole.

While I think that scenario play is beneficial to a degree--most of it is where you practice up to the point of the altercation and then the "aggressor" just sits there and takes your "punishment" without fighting back. You see it in just about EVERY self defense course. If you can apply your skill against someone who is skilled and trying to take you out...then doing it against an "unskilled" person has that much more of a success rate, whether you're practicing it in front of a fake ATM or in a ring.

[SAAMAG]

Lets deal with self defense skill. In most cases a 110 pound woman will be unable to prevail against a beginner male mma student in the 200 pound range in a sparring situation. However if she has learned a sense of striking distance, speed, accuracy and awareness she may be able to escape a threat with a properly executed finger strike to the eyes or maybe a knee to the groin(or both) These simple techniques require skill to execute non telegraphically and with accuracy. These skills can be developed in a number of ways. Sparring may help but it is not the test of the effectiveness of the techniques in self defense.

You're serious with this response? Really?

First off...a 110 pound guy will have trouble against a 200 pound guy. However you're right that if someone has learned a sense of striking distance, speed, accuracy and awareness the odds of coming out alive are that much better...and guess where you learn all that? Sparring.

The skills and attributes needed in sparring are the same skills necessary in any physical altercation--whether you label it as self defense or a duel or a mugging or sport fighting or whatever.

[YungChun]

While I think that scenario play is beneficial to a degree--most of it is where you practice up to the point of the altercation and then the "aggressor" just sits there and takes your "punishment" without fighting back.


True but there are cases where there is contact, resistance.. People can get very creative.. In some of the schools I visited or trained at they would set it up so that a higher belt rank would be "accosted" by say three lower belts.....bar room brawls..

Still, I think scenario training esp when done with the pros who are trained in sound tactics is very important for rounding out training. One place I went to even had a car (old junker) sitting in the middle of the floor...to be used as a prop for the victim either getting in or out, etc... They had lights flashing, loud sounds coming from giant speakers and folks trying to mug you... Some interesting $hit.. :D

[jesper]

Lets deal with self defense skill. In most cases a 110 pound woman will be unable to prevail against a beginner male mma student in the 200 pound range in a sparring situation. However if she has learned a sense of striking distance, speed, accuracy and awareness she may be able to escape a threat with a properly executed finger strike to the eyes or maybe a knee to the groin(or both) These simple techniques require skill to execute non telegraphically and with accuracy. These skills can be developed in a number of ways. Sparring may help but it is not the test of the effectiveness of the techniques in self defense.

Teaching these technics to other then advanced proven fighters is actually counterproductive.

In a fight with adrenaline running you will not be able to fight at optimum efficiency.
Studies show that in case of hyperstress your working at something like 40-50% efficiency at best.

If you want to test if your technics work try this.
Have a guy paint a little round target on your focus pad and then try to hit it while he tries to move it away from you.
Now try and get your body up to stress level grey ( 140-180 hearbeat/min ) and do the same.
See the difference ?

[jeetsao]

My point was not to debate the merit of any particular technique, nor the value of sparring. Rather that sparring is not the ultimate test. If it is then the smaller, weaker, as in my example, will be left with the belief that nothing works.

[YungChun]

My point was not to debate the merit of any particular technique, nor the value of sparring. Rather that sparring is not the ultimate test. If it is then the smaller, weaker, as in my example, will be left with the belief that nothing works.

Your example was generic..

A small woman against a large MMA male..?

Let's be more specific... A small woman with no training to speak of against a 1 year MMA large male... Answer: There is no magic bullet.. Aside from luck that will help her..

This is exactly why she has to train......... Any real chance will come from that training, where a good deal of that "training" will mean fighting/sparring.. Then you can work on other things to increase her chances, but she needs that core.

Do you see that the mistake is to try to find a short cut--a way out--a way to learn to fight without fighting? Because in the end it's that training, free expression that will give her or anyone the edge.. Of course there are many variables, methods but the sparring, the fighting is how you become better at fighting.. The more you challenge yourself the better you become--the better anyone's chances--small, large, it doesn't matter.

[SAAMAG]

Exactly.

The idea that there's a possibility you won't come out on top against a bigger stronger person is just reality. The fairy tale that some little 100 pound person can defeat anyone with an eye gouge and nut-bag kick isn't true. There are going to be times that you may not make it out. The only way you're going to know that...is by training against a resisting opponent in sparring or drilling or even in scenario play.

That's of course if someone is looking to hone their unarmed fighting skills alone. If you're looking at the totality of "self defense" where the other elements of self defense come into play like personal composure, awareness and avoidance, deescalation, carrying a weapon, knowing your local and federal laws and etc.

They address to different things really...martial arts training and self defense. I mean hell I've got a guy in my group that is a lean, muscular, and athletic 240 pounder. He's new to the fight game but has some basic knowledge. I'm quite a bit more experienced and skilled, but if he came at me in the middle of the night out of nowhere I can't say for certain that I'd come out on top. It's reality.

[jeetsao]

For the most part I agree with the last two. Again my point is not to debate the value of sparring as a training tool, but rather that it is not the only test of effectiveness.

[m1k3]

For the most part I agree with the last two. Again my point is not to debate the value of sparring as a training tool, but rather that it is not the only test of effectiveness.

How about its not the only test of effectiveness, just the primary.:)

[shawchemical]

My point was not to debate the merit of any particular technique, nor the value of sparring. Rather that sparring is not the ultimate test. If it is then the smaller, weaker, as in my example, will be left with the belief that nothing works.

sparring is not the ultimate test fighting is, but it goes a long way. to quote WSL, unless you are prepared to fight and win, you cannot ever truly defend yourself.

[Phil Redmond]

It didn't happen when at dinner? Again so what?

It's what I was told.. I believe it and I am saying that.......

I'm sure I'm not the only one who knew this and whether you already knew or don't accept it as true is not my concern.


Given the current state of affairs I follow my own rules not yours not some unwritten code; The truth is the light.
It also didn't happen after dinner when we went to MY's school. I was there the whole time. During his NY visit I was with Wm. Cheung everyday. We toured the city, went to two Broadway plays ate, and trained. He didn't go back to MY's school after that visit. So it couldn't have happened. Believe what you will.

[Phil Redmond]

More STORIES? Phil, why do you HAVE to rely on STORIES as THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE that Cheung had decent fighting skill? Doesn't that tell you something. Doesn't that show you how WEAK your evidence is? I don't need to rely on stories to KNOW the skill level of my MMA coach or my BJJ instructor.



Of course losing a fight doesn't mean you don't have skill -- depending on both HOW you lose and WHO you lose to. And -- you continue to use this false argument -- Chueng is not like a boxer or MMA fighter in that we have proof they have fighting skill because we can SEE for ourselves their other fights, we can see how they won and who they fought.

You've really been brainwashed, haven't you?
Brainwashing doesn't work with me. But I do know what I'm talking about. Until you show something I'll conclude that you're brainwashed into believing as you do without having the whole picture. I hope your understanding of MMA an BJJ is better than yours of WC

[t_niehoff]

Brainwashing doesn't work with me. But I do know what I'm talking about. Until you show something I'll conclude that you're brainwashed into believing as you do without having the whole picture. I hope your understanding of MMA an BJJ is better than yours of WC

Phil, how long has Cheung been going around teaching TWC? Since the mid-80s? How many video clips of Cheung, TWC, etc. do we have? Where are there any clips of the nonsense Cheung teaches -- like in those clips -- being successfully used in fighting? What? There are none!

You've been brainwashed. You believe Cheung's nonsense.

[t_niehoff]

My comment concerns the recurring argument that sparring is the be all and end all in testing a system or technique. While sparring has value it is still unrealistic.


It depends on how you do it.

WCK is to develop fighting skill, right? Same with boxing, BJJ, etc. So, how do you develop fighting skill? By practicing it. IOWs by fighting. Sparring is -- or should be -- practicing your fighting.

It's like learning to and developing your swimming -- you do it by getting in the pool and practicing swimming. It is the same with any skill.



Sparring, as seems to be used on these posts adopts a sport, mma mentality. In this type of training both consent to the rules and both know that the other has some training.


Street/sport is nonsense. Sport mentality is nonsense. Fighting skill is fighting skill. If you have the skill, you can use it on the str33t or use it in a ring or cage. If you don't have it, you can't use it.

Sport is just a venue for using the skill.



Sparring is not an attack scenario and has little resemblance to self defense. There is a vast difference in a street thug taking a swing at what he believes is a victim and two people employing strategy in a fight that each has consented to.

Of course there is a difference. There is a difference between fighting in a gym or a ring, between a ring and a cage, etc.

The TACTICS (how we use our skills) will change depending on the circumstances, but the underlying skills that you need remain the same.

[t_niehoff]

Well you're right that slipping and sidestepping are two distinct things, but they're often done together as well. I tend to slip and step to gain better angles or counters.


The difference is that you slip a punch and side step his step/body movement.



As far as standing still is concerned...it's a demonstration of one particular aspect. I probably just don't feel it's a big deal to make a fuss over him standing still. When I show a technique, I have one of the guys put on their gloves and try to hit me, I show it to them first in slower motion, then in real time with real intent. I do this because (1) I can, and (2) to assure my guys that the technique is functional.


It's a bad habit. And it transfers. Just about every single thing Cheung did in those clips were bad habits. Standing still. Reaching for punches (did you notice in the second clip when the stooge made a false move and Cheung reached out by mistake? Wouldn't boxers LOVE you to do that?). Etc. As I said, those should be labelled "How Not To Do WCK."



That said, Cheungs older and shouldn't have to spar or fight in order to demonstrate something in order for it to be viable. If they train properly, the guys will figure that out on their own when they apply it in live games & sparring. As for the rest, everyone already knows how I feel about chain punching (ack!).


You miss the point. He's teaching nonsense. It is the same nonsense he's been teaching all his life. He's teaching fantasy fu and teaching his studetns to fail.



But the last part of your post kinda confuses me. Are you saying that teaching someone as Cheung is doing is teaching them to fail or that my teaching people to move after they strike is teaching them to fail?

I was referring to Cheung.

[Tom Kagan]

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

Symmetry.


And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

Asymmetry.


:cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

Don't waste your time, Phil. The guy never stops talking trash - but does not have the balls to back up anything he says when he gets called out. That's been his history for many years now. William Cheung is now 70 years old. But neither Niehoff, nor anybody he ever trained in wing chun with, including Robert Chu, would have lasted more than 40 seconds with William when he was in his prime.

Do yourself a favor and put him on your IGNORE list and get it over with.

[t_niehoff]

Don't waste your time, Phil. The guy never stops talking trash - but does not have the balls to back up anything he says when he gets called out. That's been his history for many years now. William Cheung is now 70 years old. But neither Niehoff, nor anybody he ever trained in wing chun with, including Robert Chu, would have lasted more than 40 seconds with William when he was in his prime.

Do yourself a favor and put him on your IGNORE list and get it over with.

Cheung never had much in the way of fighting skill. If he did, he would know better than to teach the nonsense he does (now you want to stand still waiting for him to punch, then you reach for it, etc.). True fighters don't teach nonsense.

Oh, but I forgot, you believe THIS works!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1d1OyedoDE

That's almost as good as

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

[goju]

. True fighters don't teach nonsense.


do you find it odd you talk about fighting more often than than the posters here who actually fought ?:D

[t_niehoff]

^Troll. You don't practice WCK. You've never learned it, don't train it, know nothing about it. You are a troll. Go learn WCK. Troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

[goju]

^Troll. You don't practice WCK. You've never learned it, don't train it, know nothing about it. You are a troll. Go learn WCK. Troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

this has nothing to do with wc but it has everything to do with fighting and youve never competed in your life yet you talk about it as if you have

What possible insight could you have into any aspect of fighting since you dont compete?
by your own logic since you dont fight and never trained to be a fighter you are trolling and shouldnt be yapping about it at all.

so why exactly havent you fought? is there a genuine reason why youve never tried to compete?

[YungChun]

this has nothing to do with wc but it has everything to do with fighting and youve never competed in your life yet you talk about it as if you have

What possible insight could you have into any aspect of fighting since you dont compete?
by your own logic since you dont fight and never trained to be a fighter you are trolling and shouldnt be yapping about it at all.

so why exactly havent you fought? is there a genuine reason why youve never tried to compete?

WTF does competing have to do with teaching/showing unrealistic moves or knowing the difference you moron?

Go away troll..

[chusauli]

Don't waste your time, Phil. The guy never stops talking trash - but does not have the balls to back up anything he says when he gets called out. That's been his history for many years now. William Cheung is now 70 years old. But neither Niehoff, nor anybody he ever trained in wing chun with, including Robert Chu, would have lasted more than 40 seconds with William when he was in his prime.

Do yourself a favor and put him on your IGNORE list and get it over with.


So Victor, I guess with the Thanksgiving holiday there must be some anxiety in the air along with added stress and this is an example of what we're seeing.

With your imagined scenario, how long would you have lasted with William in his prime? 5 seconds?

LOL!

My point is this is stupid trash talk.

[goju]

WTF does competing have to do with teaching/showing unrealistic moves or knowing the difference you moron?

Go away troll..

sitting around calling people thoeretical non fighters and banging on about what works in a a competitive environment like youve actually been there when you havent makes a person look like they are a few planets short of a galaxy.

not to mention its incredibly disrespectful to the men and women who are genuine fighters

If you know what works in a fight grow a pair of juveos rancheros and show it instead of puffing out your chest like youre the baddest man on forum land:eek:

i know i know you guys have nothing to prove to anyone here and everyones an idiot yet you've hanged out with these idiots for years( what does that say about your intelligence level?) and passionately try to prove your view points through debates.:rolleyes:


Guys like you and terrence are deperate to prove something thats why you put on this air of grandeur where you claim you have the key to blah blah blah and you come on here daily to defend your views

if you had nothing to prove you wouldnt even bother at all with this place but the extent your willing to prove yourself only ends with bickering and name calling and never extends to actually showing your skills and it never will

[t_niehoff]

^Troll. I am not going to talk to you as you are a proven troll. You don't practice WCK yet come on a WCK forum. You don't fight, never have. You are nothing but a troll. Troll.

[Phil Redmond]

sitting around calling people thoeretical non fighters and banging on about what works in a a competitive environment like youve actually been there when you havent makes a person look like they are a few planets short of a galaxy.

not to mention its incredibly disrespectful to the men and women who are genuine fighters

If you know what works in a fight grow a pair of juveos rancheros and show it instead of puffing out your chest like youre the baddest man on forum land:eek:

i know i know you guys have nothing to prove to anyone here and everyones an idiot yet you've hanged out with these idiots for years( what does that say about your intelligence level?) and passionately try to prove your view points through debates.:rolleyes:


Guys like you and terrence are deperate to prove something thats why you put on this air of grandeur where you claim you have the key to blah blah blah and you come on here daily to defend your views

if you had nothing to prove you wouldnt even bother at all with this place but the extent your willing to prove yourself only ends with bickering and name calling and never extends to actually showing your skills and it never will

This says it all. :D

[goju]

^Troll. I am not going to talk to you as you are a proven troll. You don't practice WCK yet come on a WCK forum. You don't fight, never have. You are nothing but a troll. Troll.

I've never claimed to be a fighter and my experience and view points come only through sparring as far as what does/can work

What seperates me from someone like you is im not delusional enough to think sparring no matter how hard or realistic it is entitles me to talk about fighting. nor do i think my experiences are rare and elevate me above my peers on this board.

After all since we arent fighters we are all merely nothing more than hobbyists when it comes to the martial arts and this is something you need to realize and until you fight you and everyone else is theoretical and unproven and should leave the fighting talk to guys who have actually done it.

Or you can fight,train fighters, or become part of a fighters camp and give your opinions more worth. How someone can not do any of the three things listed above and at the same time egomanically think they can tell others how to train or they are doing wrong reeks of rabid arm chair warrior behaviour.

[YungChun]

I've never claimed to be a fighter and my experience and view points come only through sparring as far as what does/can work

More stupid comments..

So you're not a "fighter" but your "view points" come from sparring experience.. Yet other's with this experience are also not fighters and their opinions are not valid because they have not competed? WTF is that supposed to mean?

It's nonsensical babble.



What seperates me from someone like you is im not delusional enough to think sparring no matter how hard or realistic it is entitles me to talk about fighting.
nor do i think my experiences are rare and elevate me above my peers on this board.

So you fight but that doesn't entitle you or anyone to talk about fighting on a fighting board where this is the subject...

More babble..

Fighting/sparring is the experience in question.. It's what those posting here are using to form their opinions and discuss on a discussion board..

Use your own whacko standards and STFU since you don't think you are qualified to comment..I tend to agree that those with an IQ under 90 should stay away from computers regardless..

You are a dumb troll...


This says it all. :D

And giving such nonsensical babble a thumbs up says it all as well... From the guy who prefaces his clips by saying "none of this may happen in a fight, but...." Brilliant..

[YungChun]

It also didn't happen after dinner when we went to MY's school. I was there the whole time. During his NY visit I was with Wm. Cheung everyday. We toured the city, went to two Broadway plays ate, and trained. He didn't go back to MY's school after that visit. So it couldn't have happened. Believe what you will.

Bull$hit.

So Cheung never discussed TWC huh? The whole time he was there huh? Bull$hit.

How long after that visit was it when you (and others) made the switch? I guess it was his non martial art dinner conversation that got you huh? Right.. More bull$hit.

Funny how Cheung wasn't the only Sifu to visit, Wong did too, as did others, yet how many ended up following WSL out the door? None? And he had way more to offer in my book--including some class.

The facts, something that all too often seem to elude you Phil, make it clear that folks ended up following Cheung out the door.. It happened..and it happened for a reason...

Cheung was there and you would have people believe it was just his good looks right? He didn't make a case for his TWC right? Bull$hit.

MY politely sat by and let Cheung peddle away his TWC BS precisely because of your precious MoDuk...

And I have my own conversation with MY who confirms this which would be obvious even without conformation..

Now don't get me wrong I could care less, dead wood falls off the tree--but the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts..

[Phil Redmond]

Bull$hit.

So Cheung never discussed TWC huh? The whole time he was there huh? Bull$hit.

How long after that visit was it when you (and others) made the switch? I guess it was his non martial art dinner conversation that got you huh? Right.. More bull$hit.

Funny how Cheung wasn't the only Sifu to visit, Wong did too, as did others, yet how many ended up following WSL out the door? None? And he had way more to offer in my book--including some class.

The facts, something that all too often seem to elude you Phil, make it clear that folks ended up following Cheung out the door.. It happened..and it happened for a reason...

Cheung was there and you would have people believe it was just his good looks right? He didn't make a case for his TWC right? Bull$hit.

MY politely sat by and let Cheung peddle away his TWC BS precisely because of your precious MoDuk...

And I have my own conversation with MY who confirms this which would be obvious even without conformation..

Now don't get me wrong I could care less, dead wood falls off the tree--but the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts..

I'm in the city on the weekends. We could always meet and discuss this in person.
This online back and forth can be a waste of time.

[goju]

So you're not a "fighter" but your "view points" come from sparring experience.. Yet other's with this experience are also not fighters and their opinions are not valid because they have not competed? WTF is that supposed to mean?

Why is that hard to understand? If you havent competed you're not a fighter and your opinions on the matter arent of much worth.It's as simple as that

Merely attending classes at a legit gym and claiming to spar in a full contact setting doesnt come anywhere close to giving you the scope that is need to talk about it.As i said this just falls into being a hobbyist.

First hand experience in competition is the main thing that matters and is of value and since you dont have that you are relegated to baseless opinions and theories to go on and nothing more. To make matters worse neither you or t have produced students who are fighters either.Given that you both should tone down the ego just a tad and be abit more open to the views of your fellow hobbyists.


So you fight but that doesn't entitle you or anyone to talk about fighting on a fighting board where this is the subject...

More babble..

lol i didnt say that at all and im sure youre the only on here who concluded what you did from reading my post.


Fighting/sparring is the experience in question.. It's what those posting here are using to form their opinions and discuss on a discussion board..

Talking about fighting when you havent competed,spouting you're wrong stfu continually and posturing on a forum when youre a grown man isnt having a discussion ,rather its using the anomity of the internet to mouth off at people and act like a goofball. The fact that so many of you who do this are older fellows is even more amusing. So much for wisdom and maturity coming with age.:eek:


Use your own whacko standards and STFU since you don't think you are qualified to comment..I tend to agree that those with an IQ under 90 should stay away from computers regardless..

You are a dumb troll...

Or what youll ask me to pm you again so you can give me your address so we can settle diz bidness?:rolleyes: It's clear you come on here to merely proclaim youre all that and a bag of chips and when people complain about the hot air you're blowing you throw a tantrum and resort to barage of crude insults.

Golly who would have thought people react unkindly to a random forum poster that badgers them continually and insults their teachers?:eek: Certanly not me!:eek:

You had the oppurtunity to explain yourself like a sensible gentleman and you acted uncouth immediately. At the very least if youre just going to talk smack and posture be witty about it.:D

[Phil Redmond]

Bull$hit.

So Cheung never discussed TWC huh? The whole time he was there huh? Bull$hit.

How long after that visit was it when you (and others) made the switch? I guess it was his non martial art dinner conversation that got you huh? Right.. More bull$hit.

Funny how Cheung wasn't the only Sifu to visit, Wong did too, as did others, yet how many ended up following WSL out the door? None? And he had way more to offer in my book--including some class.

The facts, something that all too often seem to elude you Phil, make it clear that folks ended up following Cheung out the door.. It happened..and it happened for a reason...

Cheung was there and you would have people believe it was just his good looks right? He didn't make a case for his TWC right? Bull$hit.

MY politely sat by and let Cheung peddle away his TWC BS precisely because of your precious MoDuk...

And I have my own conversation with MY who confirms this which would be obvious even without conformation..

Now don't get me wrong I could care less, dead wood falls off the tree--but the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts..

Ok let's see. I started WC in the early 1970's. I was eventually joined Sifu Chung Kwok Chow's school on Lafayette St. in Manhattan. I had a friend who went to school with Huey Moy who was Moy Yat's nephew. They introduced me to Moy Yat when he shared his school with a White Crane Sifu. This was just after Moy Yat came to the States. This school was called Ding Leg. It was a play on words. and could have been Romanized Ding Lihk. Ding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_%28vessel%29 is a vessel that is very stable because of it's three legs.
Lihk means power like ging lihk. Anyway, Moy Yat's school was across the street from Prospect Park. I also learned another non-WC lineage at the 5 Tiger school at 120 Duane St. and with Lee Moy Shan after I left Moy Yat's school.
I later heard that Wing Chun fighter was kicking butt in Chinatown and the his name was Duncan Leung: http://members.tripod.com/wing_chun/ So in 1974 I joined Duncan's school at 3 Great Jones Street in Manhattan.Sifu Alan Lee also taught there and I was honored to learn from him. I stayed with Duncan until he left NY for VA. Them Sifu Alan Lamb came to NYC from Manchester England and I became his assistant until he moved to L.A. While I was studying from Alan Lamb at the Arron Bank's school in Mid-Town I would pass by a Times Square gift shop where Moy Yat worked. He remembered me from hi nephew Huey and asked me if I was still doing WC. I said yes and told him I was learning from the first Westerner to be accepted as a Sifu by the VTAA. Moy Yat knew that I was learning Cantonese at the time and he asked my why was I learning WC from a Lo Faan. (I didn't want to go there but I am now). He offered to make me an SSA student fro "free". Since Alan had left for L.A. I wanted to train somewhere. Why. I left I won't mention here unless one of the students who was there when I left makes a post. If that happens then I'll tell the whole story. I'd rather not get into it here. Anyway, I became the senior student of Henry Leung's Fut Sao Wing Chun. Yes, this was before James Cama. You see. I just didn't jump ship and you proposed. How old were you when I started WC in the early 70's? I only ask that because you wrote...
" How long after that visit was it when you (and others) made the switch? I guess it was his non martial art dinner conversation that got you huh?" Dude, I was William Cheung's student before his very first visit to the East Coast. So the dinner had no influence on me. What influenced me was that I was a full contact fighter who did the "popular" WC and trained under Yoel Judah (Zab Judah's father) and William Cheung made my game better. Honestly, I joined this forum to make WC friends and discuss WC. The guys who I know that fight say that I'm wasting my time here because they say that most of the people on this forum won't/can't fight outside of the comfort zone of the respective kwoons. Well now at least in the Metro NYC area people can put their fists where their keystrokes are. Just send me an email at sifu@wckwoon.com and I can arrange some competitions. There are only two ways to know if what you do works, get into fights or compete against people who want to really hurt you. Otherwise it's all BS.

[YungChun]

Why is that hard to understand? If you havent competed you're not a fighter and your opinions on the matter arent of much worth.It's as simple as that


Dumb ass statement #1:

"It's not fighting that makes you a fighter it's competing..."



Merely attending classes at a legit gym and claiming to spar in a full contact setting doesnt come anywhere close to giving you the scope that is need to talk about it.


Dumb ass statement #2:

"Doing it doesn't make you qualified to talk about it."



First hand experience in competition is the main thing that matters and is of value and since you dont have that you are relegated to baseless opinions and theories to go on and nothing more.


See dumb ass statements above.

And you don't know what I've done or who I've trained... Dumb people often make many assumptions..



To make matters worse neither you or t have produced students who are fighters either.Given that you both should tone down the ego just a tad and be abit more open to the views of your fellow hobbyists.


You should be lobotomized and leave your non functional brain matter to science.



lol i didnt say that at all and im sure youre the only on here who concluded what you did from reading my post.

You apparently don't even understand what you are writing..

1. Anyone with sense can discuss.. That leaves you and your kind out..

2. Anyone with experience (and sense) can see what's wrong with crap training.

3. Discussing the above here is the very purpose of the board...and rooting out BS does everyone a service as does intelligent discussion..

4. Intelligent and open minded people can learn from discussion, again this leaves you out.

Since you are too stupid to participate in a meaningful way I'd suggest not posting in order to keep the nonsensical noise down. But we both know that you have tons-o-dumb$hit to say--as do many stupid people and/or trolls.. So go right ahead and post your dumb ass off..

Finally your new revised pic says it all--the man child.... You should have stayed with the Purple Rain look.

I will no longer waste my time feeding your troll responding to your man-child comments...you are ignored. Have fun masturbating on the Net.

[YungChun]

Ok let's see. I started WC in the early 1970's. I was eventually joined Sifu Chung Kwok Chow's school on Lafayette St.

{merciful snip}

Just send me an email at sifu@wckwoon.com and I can arrange some competitions. There are only two ways to know if what you do works, get into fights or compete against people who want to really hurt you. Otherwise it's all BS.

The facts stand Phil...regardless of what you did.

And btw you're starting to sound more and more like Stan...

[Phil Redmond]

The facts stand Phil...regardless of what you did.

And btw you're starting to sound more and more like Stan...
Facts require proof. I have it. All you have is hearsay. Let's leave it at that. I still give you my offer to meet in person as men and martial artists. I hope you will accept.

[YungChun]

Facts require proof. I have it. All you have is hearsay. Let's leave it at that. I still give you my offer to meet in person as men and martial artists. I hope you will accept..

Hearsay my butt.. And the facts (what happened) exist.

Phil you want to meet as men?

To what "manly" purpose?

[Phil Redmond]

Phil you want to meet as men?

To what purpose?
To clear the air. I've found that people's demeanor online is different from their demeanor in person.

[YungChun]

To clear the air. I've found that people's demeanor online is different from their demeanor in person.

I live in Westchester.. If you feel the need to meet me then feel free to come here... PM me for info.

[Tom Kagan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_N2kJg29v4


Keep on cooking
Keep on looking
Gotta stay on this case
Study the pix
Watch the fix
We've got to find the face

[t_niehoff]

Honestly, I joined this forum to make WC friends and discuss WC.


Great, so when are you going to start discussing WCK?



The guys who I know that fight


You mean like these guys?

https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#sent/12b7de8b69813956

Same guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9-KSC1fPQ

You talk about your "fighters" yet when I see how they train and what they do, I know they aren't fighters. Fighters wouldn't be doing nonsense.

FWIW, everyone I train with fights. Everyone. As part of their training. Every time they train, they fight. To practice WCK is to fight. I don't need to make the distinction between "the guys I know who fight" and others.



say that I'm wasting my time here because they say that most of the people on this forum won't/can't fight outside of the comfort zone of the respective kwoons.


Let me translate: they won't spar with other crappy people at the ManUp StandUp. Why don't you and "the people you know who fight" go train/spar at some good, proven MMA or MT gyms?

The answer: because then you'd be exposed.



Well now at least in the Metro NYC area people can put their fists where their keystrokes are. Just send me an email at sifu@wckwoon.com and I can arrange some competitions. There are only two ways to know if what you do works, get into fights or compete against people who want to really hurt you. Otherwise it's all BS.

NO, you can just go to any decent MMA or MT gym and spar with good, solid fighters. You don't need to compete or get into street fights -- just go fight with good proven fighters. This is what you NEED to do to develop skill. If your training is functional, if it is developing fighting skills, then you are already fighting. Fighting is what develops fighting skill. This is what all sportfighters have realized. This is why boxers, MT, BJJ, etc. all fight as the core of their training. They fight/spar every time they go to the gym.



You seem to take fighting as some unique activity, to be done every once in a while. Fighting should be your day-in-and-day-out training. And you also seem to not appreciate that sparring/fighting BY ITSELF isn't sufficient -- it is the QUALITY of your sparring/fightign partners that is CRITICAL. It is the most important thing.

[Peaceful Orchid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9-KSC1fPQ

Other than the fact that there is no grappling, how is that any different than any MMA fighter in his first fight?

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's basically no different.

But what you have to understand, Peaceful Orchid with 42 posts....is that Terence Niehoff is the resident ultra-trash talker who has never backed up anything he pontificates about with verifiable evidence that he actually does what he says he does.

He goes on and on about his mma-type training, wck experiences and wisdom, etc...

but it's all a complete mystery - since he has never (and will never) post a vid of himself, or show up anywhere, or allow others to come and check him out with some real hands-on.

And as you can see from the vid in question that you rightly put your finger on, he also does the "who are you going to believe, me, or your lyin' eyes" routine constantly.

Followed by ad hominems if you call him on any of it.

It's best to IGNORE him.

[Peaceful Orchid]

It's basically no different.

But what you have to understand, Peaceful Orchid with 42 posts....is that Terence Niehoff is the resident ultra-trash talker who has never backed up anything he pontificates about with verifiable evidence that he actually does what he says he does.

He goes on and on about his mma-type training, wck experiences and wisdom, etc...

but it's all a complete mystery - since he has never (and will never) post a vid of himself, or show up anywhere, or allow others to come and check him out with some real hands-on.

And as you can see from the vid in question that you rightly put your finger on, he also does the "who are you going to believe, me, or your lyin' eyes" routine constantly.

Followed by ad hominems if you call him on any of it.

It's best to IGNORE him.

I lurked for a while before posting so I know he claims to walk the walk, but hasn't really provided any evidence for that.

Of course, there are several other people who regularly post here that have also done the same.

Should we put them on ignore also?

[Ultimatewingchun]

No.

I single him out because he's by far the biggest culprit. Keep lurking and you'll see what I mean.

[Peaceful Orchid]

No.

I single him out because he's by far the biggest culprit. Keep lurking and you'll see what I mean.

I've seen one or two others who pontificate and claim high levels to the extreme he does, yet provide no evidence.

[JPinAZ]

FWIW, everyone I train with fights. Everyone. As part of their training. Every time they train, they fight. To practice WCK is to fight. I don't need to make the distinction between "the guys I know who fight" and others.


Funny, you never mentioned if you fought even once, just that the guys you 'train with' fight as part of their training.. There was no 'we' in that statement. So, unless you're speaking from your experience as a fighter (which so far you're not), you're just a poser theoretical-non-fighter swinging off the nuts of those that 'can', as usual.

On another note, I give Phil's student a lot of credit to go in there, mix it up for the first time and not be afraid to have it filmed and put up on the internet. Phil's fought in the past, his guys are doing it now and not afraid to film it and post it up - win or lose. This says a lot more than your being too chicken sh!t to post up any clips of you doing anything. Main reason you don't post up anything is so you can sit back and rip everyone else like a weak little man behind his keyboard without fear of someone seeing your garbage WC or 'fighting' skills (and lack there-of).
Probably same reason you go to workshops and sit on the sidelines - if you got up and actually participated, you'd be seen for the no-skill, internet-sh!t-talking wannabe that you are.

[YungChun]

I've seen one or two others who pontificate and claim high levels to the extreme he does, yet provide no evidence.

Go ahead and show where he claims "High Levels"....whatever that means...(sounds like a head shop slogan) He doesn't.. This is what you (and some others) imagine in your own head...

What some people fail to realize is that it doesn't matter if Terence is the best fighter of all time or a paraplegic--what does he say? Is there merit in what he says or not?

I thought he had an agenda at one time, now I don't... I'd like to see video too but I can't hold that against what he says, which is usually spot on.. The only "agenda" T has IMO is to say what he thinks is good or bad about training...OMG what fuking balls, how dare he make a case for his views!!! Many are threatened by his ideas and those that are need to take a long look at themselves because something is amiss with their ego, or perhaps it is they who have the "agenda"..

This is a forum and ideas are expressed, and sometimes videos posted.. If you don't know how to handle debate and discussion this is the wrong place to hang out... If you post video but you don't want to hear what others think then why the f$@k are you putting up videos? If those posting videos expect everyone to say ohhhh that is so cool and kiss ass then you had better head over to the ass kissing forum...or not post videos because someone will always be critical.. The question is if the criticism is valid or not...if not then who cares and if so then you have a chance to learn... Learning is the name of the game... If you can't set your ego aside then you can't learn....

[Ultimatewingchun]

"What some people fail to realize is that it doesn't matter if Terence is the best fighter of all time or a paraplegic--what does he say? Is there merit in what he says or not?" (Yung Chun)

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

***I FAIL to see the merit in constantly telling people that what they do is 5hit when you yourself have not competed against them, or someone doing what they do, are you are 5hit yourself.

Or in constantly telling people that they should go compete against/train with the type of people you say you compete against/train with...when there is absolutely no evidence that you do any such thing - other than perhaps sitting along the sidelines - which you have been observed to do in the past. (This later activity has been verified).

And I don't see the merit in pontificating about wing chun while telling everybody that they don't know anything worhtwhile when you, yourself can't use basic wing chun weaponry like pak, lop, bil, garn, bong, lan, chuen, etc. at all. That's not other people's problem - it's your problem.

So I fail to see the merit in dumping one's ego problems into the laps of other people who don't have the same insecurities, failings, and resentments you do.

I also fail to see the merit in constantly changing ones' tune 180 degrees about things like the nature of chi sao, or who believes (after what, some 20+ years of doing wing chun?) that elbow strikes are the primary wing chun offensive weapon.

Or who doesn't understand that a close quarter striking/fighting system isn't the the same as being "attached" (as in while fighting in the clinch).

And I also don't see the merit in someone who says he constantly trains with mma and MT guys (for years now) and then tells the forum that tan sao will work in escaping from a plum neck tie.

All of these things indicate numerous red flags concerning one's credibility, not to mention one's integrity and backbone.

Sorry, but I know bull5hit when I smell it.

[SAAMAG]

"What some people fail to realize is that it doesn't matter if Terence is the best fighter of all time or a paraplegic--what does he say? Is there merit in what he says or not?" (Yung Chun)

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

***I FAIL to see the merit in constantly telling people that what they do is 5hit when you yourself have not competed against them, or someone doing what they do, are you are 5hit yourself.

Or in constantly telling people that they should go compete against/train with the type of people you say you compete against/train with...when there is absolutely no evidence that you do any such thing - other than perhaps sitting along the sidelines - which you have been observed to do in the past. (This later activity has been verified).

And I don't see the merit in pontificating about wing chun while telling everybody that they don't know anything worhtwhile when you, yourself can't use basic wing chun weaponry like pak, lop, bil, garn, bong, lan, chuen, etc. at all. That's not other people's problem - it's your problem.

So I fail to see the merit in dumping one's ego problems into the laps of other people who don't have the same insecurities, failings, and resentments you do.

I also fail to see the merit in constantly changing ones' tune 180 degrees about things like the nature of chi sao, or who believes (after what, some 20+ years of doing wing chun?) that elbow strikes are the primary wing chun offensive weapon.

Or who doesn't understand that a close quarter striking/fighting system isn't the the same as being "attached" (as in while fighting in the clinch).

And I also don't see the merit in someone who says he constantly trains with mma and MT guys (for years now) and then tells the forum that tan sao will work in escaping from a plum neck tie.

All of these things indicate numerous red flags concerning one's credibility, not to mention one's integrity and backbone.

Sorry, but I know bull5hit when I smell it.

A tan sao CAN work to snake into an inside position. You're putting your wrist on the centerline and driving forward and into a man geng sao. The spreading happens as the arm moves forward and eventually takes the space that the other guy's arm was in.

But that's mostly just using "wing chun-isms" for a move that is normally done in muay thai regardless. ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think I'll skip the tan sao, Van, and go with some of this stuff. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EEx7rnsiHw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVlVGUh3yzg&feature=related

[SAAMAG]

I think I'll skip the tan sao, Van, and go with some of this stuff. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EEx7rnsiHw&feature=related

Honestly, it's just an inside pummel to get your own inside grip. One of the first things you learn when someone gets the inside position. Real basic. In fact the guy in your clip does the general idea at around 2:40 but without the tan sao flair and he turned his body more sideways--which I wouldn't do---mainly because of the very counter that he also shows with the shoulder shuck later on. But different strokes for different folks.

I think the guy makes it seem as if the inside grip is something that's super complicated to get out of. If you know what you're doing--it's not a big deal and you don't need 20 different escapes for it.

I typically just use a single tie jerk to create space between the arms and just slip my arm through easy smeazy. Works on little guys usually tossing em to the ground, and it works on bigger stronger guys who are strong enough to keep their arms in place when you try to wedge in.

[YungChun]

I'll just touch on a couple of these..



***I FAIL to see the merit in constantly telling people that what they do is 5hit when you yourself have not competed against them, or someone doing what they do, are you are 5hit yourself.

Krap is krap... We can see it in many different kinds of activities... I don't need to be an opera singer to know when one sucks... The issue here is anger..and the desire to shoot back.... He doesn't give you the chance except with words....



Or in constantly telling people that they should go compete against/train with the type of people you say you compete against/train with...when there is absolutely no evidence that you do any such thing

This is meaningless Victor and you know it. You know very well this is the truth.. that the better the people you spar with the better you will be.. That fact is not changed regardless of what the messenger does..and you know it.

Moreover if we were to use the tried and true FBI technique of profiling Terence using info we can verify I'm sorry but "sideliner" is not what pops up.... I won't bother piecing this together in detail but suffice it to say "slacker" doesn't quite match.


And I don't see the merit in pontificating about wing chun while telling everybody that they don't know anything worhtwhile when you, yourself can't use basic wing chun weaponry like pak, lop, bil, garn, bong, lan, chuen, etc. at all.


I'm sure you don't want to hear this but what I have learned is that much of the confusion about this stuff is the language and the exact terms used.. Delivery aside, Terence's focus is often on it's how you do or explain these things, bridge vs block, etc and the exact terms = methods used... T does talk about using these things, but no not as blocks..

And we don't have to agree. I don't agree with everything he says but many of the things he talks about, such as the TMA limiting mindset, the traps of unrealistic training and thinking are some huge issues that need to be addressed in TCMA--IOW liking T or not does not change the validity of the message...

[t_niehoff]

Funny, you never mentioned if you fought even once, just that the guys you 'train with' fight as part of their training.. There was no 'we' in that statement. So, unless you're speaking from your experience as a fighter (which so far you're not), you're just a poser theoretical-non-fighter swinging off the nuts of those that 'can', as usual.


For some reason many of you think that fighting means only fighting in competition. Fighting is fighting. The point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Period. So, the only training that develops your fighting skill is to practice fighting. I know BJJ BBs who have never "competed". But they get out and roll -- that is, fight -- every time they train.

Do I fight? Yup. Every time I go to BJJ class, every time I go to MMA class, every time I go to WCK "class".



On another note, I give Phil's student a lot of credit to go in there, mix it up for the first time and not be afraid to have it filmed and put up on the internet.


Spoken like a true theoretical nonfighter. If you go "in there and mix it up" every single time you train, then why is it a big deal? You are used to getting pounded, submitted, etc.

Or, do you give him "credit" for taping his inadequacies?



Phil's fought in the past, his guys are doing it now and not afraid to film it and post it up - win or lose.


So? You think what matters is not your skill or whether you can make your WCK work but that you are willing to tape yourself and put it on the internet? That this is what matters? Then tell me, where are the clips of Garrett? Hmmm?



This says a lot more than your being too chicken sh!t to post up any clips of you doing anything. Main reason you don't post up anything is so you can sit back and rip everyone else like a weak little man behind his keyboard without fear of someone seeing your garbage WC or 'fighting' skills (and lack there-of).
Probably same reason you go to workshops and sit on the sidelines - if you got up and actually participated, you'd be seen for the no-skill, internet-sh!t-talking wannabe that you are.

I guess then the same "logic" applies to you, your sifu, and Garrett Gee since none of you have posted clips either? You must all be chicken sh1t. ;)

[KPM]

What some people fail to realize is that it doesn't matter if Terence is the best fighter of all time or a paraplegic--what does he say? Is there merit in what he says or not?

..

I gotta agree with Jim on this one. Terence and I have had our own differences of opinion and heated discussions here in the past. But since coming back to this forum after about a 2 year hiatus I have to say that T has said some good stuff lately and been "spot on" with the majority of it.

[t_niehoff]

I'll just touch on a couple of these..


Krap is krap... We can see it in many different kinds of activities... I don't need to be an opera singer to know when one sucks... The issue here is anger..and the desire to shoot back.... He doesn't give you the chance except with words....


People find various fallacious ways of defending their views. You are quite right -- a person doesn't need to even do the activity to be able to recognize good or bad performance. If a tennis player couldn't return a ball or a basketball player couldn't dribble or sink a basket, would we need to be a good player to recognize their deficiencies? Of course not.



This is meaningless Victor and you know it. You know very well this is the truth.. that the better the people you spar with the better you will be.. That fact is not changed regardless of what the messenger does..and you know it.


This is what people like Victor (remember, he is learning 'catch" via video and practicing it with his students and won't go near a good grappling school) don't want to accept. Because if they did,what would it say about them, their sifu, how they train, etc.?

But you're absolutely correct: we are only as good as our sparring partners.



Moreover if we were to use the tried and true FBI technique of profiling Terence using info we can verify I'm sorry but "sideliner" is not what pops up.... I won't bother piecing this together in detail but suffice it to say "slacker" doesn't quite match.


The simple truth is that Victor, et al, can't refute the merits of my argument or position -- after all, my position is not something I made up but is what all good fighters and fight trainers say and do. I've merely seen from my own experience the validity of that view. So, all he can do is take the don't-listen-to-him-he's-a-rotter approach. Sad.



I'm sure you don't want to hear this but what I have learned is that much of the confusion about this stuff is the language and the exact terms used.. Delivery aside, Terence's focus is often on it's how you do or explain these things, bridge vs block, etc and the exact terms = methods used... T does talk about using these things, but no not as blocks..


Yes, because they are NOT blocks.



And we don't have to agree. I don't agree with everything he says but many of the things he talks about, such as the TMA limiting mindset, the traps of unrealistic training and thinking are some huge issues that need to be addressed in TCMA--IOW liking T or not does not change the validity of the message...

Do you see, Jim, that it's not really me that he dislikes, it IS the message he hates. Because "the message" and what it entails completely undermines his world-view. That is why he gets so angry. If I presented his view, in the same exact manner, he wouldn't be angry.

[t_niehoff]

I've seen one or two others who pontificate and claim high levels to the extreme he does, yet provide no evidence.

I never claim any "high level." In fact, I'm one of the few on this forum who has said that I'm not that good. And I recognize that because I train with fighters and see what "good" really is.

This underscores what I am getting at. If you train (spar) only with poorly skilled people, and never train with "good" people, you get a false view of your skill level (and a false view of what you need to be able to do and can do in fighting). You begin to think you are really "good" because you are as good or better than the people you are training with.

And in WCK circles, typically you only "train" with your same group (or with other kung fu people or karate people -- IOWs, other poorly skilled folks), so you only face people doing the exact same, silly things you are. It's like if you learn/train to spar while remaining on one leg -- you will be able to do it with your classmates because they are all on one leg too. And your sifu and his students will think that sifu is "good" because he can do it best having trained on one leg more than his students and so has more facility doing it.

But what they don't see is that this training isn't helping them, it is actually hurting them, it is counter-productive. They are really training to fail. They are becoming worse fighters, not better fighters. Because when they really fight someone who is not of their group, and doesn't spar on one leg, everything they have "trained" goes out the window.

Then when someone tells them this, they get angry. If you tell them just go train/spar a bit at some MT or MMA gym, where they don't train to fight on one leg, and that they will see for themselves they won't be able to make what they do work, they refuse.

My view is that if someone is genuinely interested in being a better fighter, of genuinely learning to make his WCK functional, then they will go and see. The one's who don't have a different agenda and it has nothing to do with increasing their performance levels.

[goju]

For some reason many of you think that fighting means only fighting in competition. Fighting is fighting. The point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Period. So, the only training that develops your fighting skill is to practice fighting. I know BJJ BBs who have never "competed". But they get out and roll -- that is, fight -- every time they train.

Do I fight? Yup. Every time I go to BJJ class, every time I go to MMA class, every time I go to WCK "class".

sparring and fighting are two different things what youre claiming to do falls into the former

while sparring mimics fighting it does so in a controlled environment that minimizing risks to ones body

in fighting its another matter your opponent is coming at you 100 percent and trying to injure you as best as they can every second you two are in a competition

why dont you ask the guys who have competed here if what your claiming makes you a fighter? better yet heres a discussion from boxers who have competed who show youre living in a fantasy land.

http://www.fighthype.com/community/index.php?showtopic=8441

[Ultimatewingchun]

Of course they are blocks, Jim. And redirections, parries, etc. There is no question or debate about these things. NONE.That is, by anyone who has any real skill in wing chun.

And especially someone with 20+ years of wing chun.

And he can talk all he wants about how he spars, rolls, "fights", etc. each and every class with whoever he says...but without even a single vid, or a visit by someone, or showing up to engage somewhere other than within his own little comfort zone (whatever that might really be)...why should anyone believe him?

Why should anyone believe that he's little more than a dabbler in these things?

Because he constantly talks about it? As in, say, every post, of which there are hundreds if not thousands by now?

I'm thinking of the Shakespeare line about "she dost protest too much."

Do you know what I'm saying? I smell a rat here. And so do a lot of people.

And of course the biggest thing of all is his constant nasty verbal/keyboard attacks on what other people do - and then he refuses to go face-to-face with them when they call him out.

This is a classic example of a guy who is a keyboard warrior - and little else.

And then there is the double standard that he constantly applies, one standard for himself - and a different one for everybody else.

Here's something that was just quoted from him by another poster on this thread, by way of example:

"Originally Posted by t_niehoff
For some reason many of you think that fighting means only fighting in competition. Fighting is fighting. The point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Period. So, the only training that develops your fighting skill is to practice fighting. I know BJJ BBs who have never "competed". But they get out and roll -- that is, fight -- every time they train.

Do I fight? Yup. Every time I go to BJJ class, every time I go to MMA class, every time I go to WCK "class".
.............................

BUT THIS IS THE VERY THING THAT HE HIMSELF TELLS OTHER PEOPLE NOT TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH.

Of course you develop fighting skill through "fighting" - but what he's talking about is sparring. Which is fine. But what's not fine is when he tells other people that their "sparring" is meaningless - but his "fighting" is okay. (What "fighting"? - the guy is sparring. If that much.)

What a clown.

[Hardwork108]

sparring and fighting are two different things what youre claiming to do falls into the former

Well, what Terrence is implying is that when the BJJ guys spar, they are actually fighting, but if you practice traditional kung fu (or karate), and you spar, it is not fighting.....:confused:

LOL!

I tell you, it is not for nothing, but I get a lot of laughs out of many of the posters here on almost a daily basis. LOL! :D

[SAAMAG]

Well, what Terrence is implying is that when the BJJ guys spar, they are actually fighting, but if you practice traditional kung fu (or karate), and you spar, it is not fighting.....:confused:

LOL!

I tell you, it is not for nothing, but I get a lot of laughs out of many of the posters here on almost a daily basis. LOL! :D

I guarantee you, that a BJJ fight and BJJ rolling session are only different in the fact that people stop before maiming each other. Otherwise--it's the same intensity.

Same goes for most guys in MMA gyms when they practice standup. We had to move the standup sparring to the end of the day and make it mandatory for 160z gloves because guys kept knocking each other out when it was done early on and with varying oz's.

The "real" fight (e.g. out of the gym, without gear, typically serious repercussions whether you win or lose...) will have a different mindset and environment leaving varying degrees of mental and chemical performance barriers. Otherwise it's the same in terms of what you need to do and how intense you would be going about it.

The idea that TCMA or any TMA has a "better way" of learning to fight is just--not true. Perhaps in the 1800's, but not today. Today what they have are antiquated methods of training that no longer translate to real fighting due to the passing down of diluted material from people who have never fought in their lives. Material that over the years / decades / etc has changed to the point of having no relation whatsoever to fighting; not to mention training methods that actually hinder and regress one's ability to apply their art.

Now having said that it doesn't mean that one wouldn't be able to defend themselves if going the TCMA route...but if the person they might be fighting is at all trained or even just highly athletic, then the likelihood of success goes waaaaay down compared to someone who used modern training methods.

It's been proven time and time and time again. It's not the art in itself...but the training methods that need to be updated. That's why all the successful arts are ones that evolve with the times and needs of the environment. Basically, if people stop clinging to the "T" in TCMA...then things would be a lot better on the whole in terms of CMA performance.

Quick example...who would you pick to win: a 5-year judoka who's a seasoned competitor or a 5-year shiua jiao guy who has never competed in his life?

[Hardwork108]

I guarantee you, that a BJJ fight and BJJ rolling session are only different in the fact that people stop before maiming each other. Otherwise--it's the same intensity.
I was not criticizing BJJ.


Same goes for most guys in MMA gyms when they practice standup. We had to move the standup sparring to the end of the day and make it mandatory for 160z gloves because guys kept knocking each other out when it was done early on and with varying oz's.
People, including me, have been hurt during TCMA sparring and general training, for that matter.


The "real" fight (e.g. out of the gym, without gear, typically serious repercussions whether you win or lose...) will have a different mindset and environment leaving varying degrees of mental and chemical performance barriers.
Some of those "barriers" can be overcome by a "mind like water". ;)

Also, you can train you different mindsets for fighting, or train no mindset, and just "be". Each approach is valid, as regards to who is doing it, of course. ;)


Otherwise it's the same in terms of what you need to do and how intense you would be going about it.

I agree.


The idea that TCMA or any TMA has a "better way" of learning to fight

Where did I say that?:confused:


is just--not true.

IMHO, to make the above statement you need to have experienced various TCMAs for many years and AUTHENTICALLY at that.

Just saying....


Perhaps in the 1800's, but not today. Today what they have are antiquated methods of training that no longer translate to real fighting due to the passing down of diluted material from people who have never fought in their lives.

What about kung fu taught by sifus and masters who have had real and life and death fight experiences, such as Chinese masters who lived through upheavals just in the 20th century China? There are masters such as this in Chow Gar and Ngo Cho, as well as others, and they in their turn have produced students who are very capable and are sifus and masters today.

Why do some people assume that if you have no sport fighting experience then your art is not valid?


Material that over the years / decades / etc has changed to the point of having no relation whatsoever to fighting; not to mention training methods that actually hinder and regress one's ability to apply their art.
I would agree that some of the materials in some lineages, of some styles, has changed the way you have mentioned.

However, other material has not changed and is very functional, but has to be taught properly with the necessary body connectivity/unity concepts and/or power training, for the their given techniques to be functional.

The real problem is that it is very difficult to find such tuition. Some of the few who come across such training are not "ready", hence they give up and join modern fighting gyms where the training methodology makes more sense to their level of thinking (yes, people think on different levels!).

That means other "modern" MA-ists who are unfamiliar with these methodologies will not be able to make sense of their techniques, on a functional level, no matter how many "decades" they have been working out in their"modern" MMA fighting gyms.


Now having said that it doesn't mean that one wouldn't be able to defend themselves if going the TCMA route...but if the person they might be fighting is at all trained or even just highly athletic, then the likelihood of success goes waaaaay down compared to someone who used modern training methods.

I disagree.

Again IMHO, you would need a lot more authentic TCMA experience to even get close to qualifying to make such a generalization.

You are posting in a Kung Fu forum saying that the MMA way is better, yet you criticize me when in your perception you see me favoring the TCMA methodologies over the MMA ones.


It's been proven time and time and time again. It's not the art in itself...but the training methods that need to be updated.
IMHO, what you say may hold true for the sporting arena, because of the rules and general extended time periods involved.

However, I believe that the problem with the TCMAs is not the fact that they do not follow modern training methodologies, but rather that they don't stick to their ORIGINAL ones!!!


That's why all the successful arts are ones that evolve with the times and needs of the environment.

IMHO, the needs of the environment in the old days was far more relevant for the development of efficient unarmed combat techniques then the relatively civilized one of today.


Basically, if people stop clinging to the "T" in TCMA...then things would be a lot better on the whole in terms of CMA performance.
Again IMHO, things are not "a lot better" in terms of CMA performance because for the very fact that people have not GENUINELY stuck to the "T" in TCMAs and have gone on to learn incompletely watered down and invented fantasies, and then improving their "half knowledge" by mixing in modern methodologies.


Quick example...who would you pick to win: a 5-year judoka who's a seasoned competitor or a 5-year shiua jiao guy who has never competed in his life?

I would pick the one with the better teacher. ;)

I might also pick the one with the higher degree of aggressiveness and/or intention.

[SAAMAG]

I was not criticizing BJJ. People, including me, have been hurt during TCMA sparring and general training, for that matter.
Well I wasn't trying to imply that you were, just mentioning that to illustrate that the line between fighting and sparring can be quite thin.



Some of those "barriers" can be overcome by a "mind like water". ;) Also, you can train you different mindsets for fighting, or train no mindset, and just "be". Each approach is valid, as regards to who is doing it, of course. ;)
You and I have already had miscommunications with the concept of mushin and wuwei. Let's just leave that alone.



What about kung fu taught by sifus and masters who have had real and life and death fight experiences, such as Chinese masters who lived through upheavals just in the 20th century China? There are masters such as this in Chow Gar and Ngo Cho, as well as others, and they in their turn have produced students who are very capable and are sifus and masters today.

Why do some people assume that if you have no sport fighting experience then your art is not valid?

I would agree that some of the materials in some lineages, of some styles, has changed the way you have mentioned.

However, other material has not changed and is very functional, but has to be taught properly with the necessary body connectivity/unity concepts and/or power training, for the their given techniques to be functional.

The real problem is that it is very difficult to find such tuition. Some of the few who come across such training are not "ready", hence they give up and join modern fighting gyms where the training methodology makes more sense to their level of thinking (yes, people think on different levels!).
Those "masters" are few and far between. The styles I'm talking about are the ones that are using techniques and training methods that are not tested and proven true, mimic animals as opposed to using the human body as it naturally moves, or are not trained in such a way as to build actual skill in application. We know enough today through science to understand the core of what needs to be done to improve performance...and some "master" who hasn't got that education will not know what he doesn't know.



That means other "modern" MA-ists who are unfamiliar with these methodologies will not be able to make sense of their techniques, on a functional level, no matter how many "decades" they have been working out in their"modern" MMA fighting gyms.

The same can be said of the ones teaching the antiquated methods that are not in line with proven training methods of improving human performance. There is no understanding to be had though really...does it work or doesn't it? That's the bottom line.



I disagree.

Again IMHO, you would need a lot more authentic TCMA experience to even get close to qualifying to make such a generalization.

You are posting in a Kung Fu forum saying that the MMA way is better, yet you criticize me when in your perception you see me favoring the TCMA methodologies over the MMA ones.

I figured you would. I'm posting in a gung fu forum criticizing blindly following antiquated dogma and not being open to using modern knowledge to improve your performance. I'm not an MMA nut-rider but do appreciate the honesty of the sport.



IMHO, what you say may hold true for the sporting arena, because of the rules and general extended time periods involved.

However, I believe that the problem with the TCMAs is not the fact that they do not follow modern training methodologies, but rather that they don't stick to their ORIGINAL ones!!!

Based on what data?



IMHO, the needs of the environment in the old days was far more relevant for the development of efficient unarmed combat techniques then the relatively civilized one of today.


Again IMHO, things are not "a lot better" in terms of CMA performance because for the very fact that people have not GENUINELY stuck to the "T" in TCMAs and have gone on to learn incompletely watered down and invented fantasies, and then improving their "half knowledge" by mixing in modern methodologies.

I believe it to be quite the contrary. People that embrace knowledge start to understand what works and what doesn't in the most honest way possible...performance.



I would pick the one with the better teacher. ;)

I might also pick the one with the higher degree of aggressiveness and/or intention.
The teacher won't be the one fighting. And I'd pick the one that has more experience actually fighting.

[bennyvt]

Dont they roll in BJJ classes. As in start on the ground, not using strikes etc. How is that fighting. I spar with a shooter, we stand until we go to the ground we use strikes (not full force but I have still been split open on a regular basis, we go to we tap. That is sparing, not a fight, a hell of alot closer then just rolling. But I have got heaps worse doing chisao, well I haven't ripped stuff as much (I have this weird thing where I actually either rip or twist it on my own, my mate says I am the only person to ever armbar himself:rolleyes:) but I have got alot worse split eyes, busted noses etc. But chisao is not fighting.
I think any mma class would be more applicable within the basis of using protection, in a controlled environment.

[t_niehoff]

Dont they roll in BJJ classes. As in start on the ground, not using strikes etc. How is that fighting. I spar with a shooter, we stand until we go to the ground we use strikes (not full force but I have still been split open on a regular basis, we go to we tap. That is sparing, not a fight, a hell of alot closer then just rolling. But I have got heaps worse doing chisao, well I haven't ripped stuff as much (I have this weird thing where I actually either rip or twist it on my own, my mate says I am the only person to ever armbar himself:rolleyes:) but I have got alot worse split eyes, busted noses etc. But chisao is not fighting.
I think any mma class would be more applicable within the basis of using protection, in a controlled environment.

Approach it from a different direction.

Why do sport fighters spar? To practice fighting. Realistic sparring is practicing your fighting. That's how they develop fighting skill (become better at fighting). If your sparring isn't fighting, you are wasting your time.

And one proven way of doing that is to FOCUS your fighting by limiting the things you can do.

Rolling -- what the sparring in BJJ is called -- in BJJ is fighting. Just like boxing is fighting. Just like the sparring in MT is fighting. All martial arts have their own focus, and that focus uses certain, specific tools and necessarily leaves out other things, other skills/tools. That FOCUS permits you to better develop those certain specific skills. For example, by not allowing strikes in rolling, it forces you to find and use grappling skills to solve the problems you face. If I can't punch my way out of the guard (which is one option) as punching isn't permitted, then it forces me to work my guard passes. If I can't GNP, it forces me to work my subs.

Does BJJ alone or boxing alone make you a well-rounded fighter (having competent stand-up, clinch, ground)? No. Can you still sometimes get away not being a well-rounded fighter? Sure.

Chi sao is not sparring/fighting; it is an unrealistic exercise. Can you get busted lips, etc. in chi sao? Sure. But just because we are using combative tools in the drill doesn't mean what we are doing is realistic. People get injured doing aikido randori too. But that isn't realistic. People get injured doing karate point sparring but that isn't realistic.

[bennyvt]

rolling is fighting without the punches, so thats really fighting. Chisao is fighting without the grappling so it isn't fighting. Wake up man rolling is the ***** version of fighting on the ground. How many BJJ guys have been screwed by punching them in the face. I think gracie found that out, if he didn't just pull kimos hair like a little girl he would have been smashed. If you don;t strike, dont hit as hard as you can, do go to the ground and generally put any rules into the way you train then you are not fighting. Chi sao, just like rolling makes you emphasis one aspect of the fight. So if chi sao is redundant then rolling with a pyjama on is just as stupid if you think you are fighting.Hence why I do my VT, Ground work and proper spar as seperate things. I do chisao, roll and then combine it all when sparing. This is the closest I can get to fighting while still being realativly safe (I normally train at work and as I found out last week trying to explain why you poped your own knee out is hard in a health and saftey way. Its funny The guy had my leg and I was sitting on his belly I went for a knee bar but realised I didn't have my hooks in. I twisted to try to hook his leg (I forgot he already had a lock on my leg) twisted my waist and popped my knee out.

[t_niehoff]

Of course they are blocks, Jim. And redirections, parries, etc. There is no question or debate about these things. NONE.That is, by anyone who has any real skill in wing chun.

And especially someone with 20+ years of wing chun.


No, they are not blocks, deflections,etc. They are bridge hands. Bridge hands can block, deflect, etc. but they also do much, much more. They are "handles" that connect us to our opponent, and we can use those "handles" to control them.



And he can talk all he wants about how he spars, rolls, "fights", etc. each and every class with whoever he says...but without even a single vid, or a visit by someone, or showing up to engage somewhere other than within his own little comfort zone (whatever that might really be)...why should anyone believe him?

Why should anyone believe that he's little more than a dabbler in these things?

Because he constantly talks about it? As in, say, every post, of which there are hundreds if not thousands by now?

I'm thinking of the Shakespeare line about "she dost protest too much."

Do you know what I'm saying? I smell a rat here. And so do a lot of people.

And of course the biggest thing of all is his constant nasty verbal/keyboard attacks on what other people do - and then he refuses to go face-to-face with them when they call him out.

This is a classic example of a guy who is a keyboard warrior - and little else.


Yes, Victor, I won't fly across the country to "fight" with morons who call me out with internet challenges. Instead, I tell them to come see me or, if they have something to prove, just go visit a good MMA school.

You keep trying to portray me as someone who is in hiding. I've met and trained with several people on this forum, Robert, Rene, Dave, Keith, Marty, etc. I've been to a WCK Friendship Seminar. I hosted a Chu seminar. I've met with and trained with people who have visited me (Scott Baker who fought in UFC2, for example).

If people put up silly, nonsense on youtube, why shouldn't I criticize it? If you want to put up "how to deal with a hook" and show that you are clueless, why should I need to put up my own clip?

What you don't grasp is that what really matters isn't seeing someone else do it. What matters is that YOU yourself give your self the right kind of experience. You don't need to see me grapple or use my WCK; that won't help you. The only thing that will is YOU going to a good grappling school and doing it yourself. That's the point I keep making. If you spent 15 minutes in a boxing gym sparring with the boxers, you'd know that your "how to deal with the hook" approach was utter nonsense.



And then there is the double standard that he constantly applies, one standard for himself - and a different one for everybody else.


What double standard? I am not holding anyone to a different standard than myself.



Here's something that was just quoted from him by another poster on this thread, by way of example:

"Originally Posted by t_niehoff
For some reason many of you think that fighting means only fighting in competition. Fighting is fighting. The point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Period. So, the only training that develops your fighting skill is to practice fighting. I know BJJ BBs who have never "competed". But they get out and roll -- that is, fight -- every time they train.

Do I fight? Yup. Every time I go to BJJ class, every time I go to MMA class, every time I go to WCK "class".
.............................

BUT THIS IS THE VERY THING THAT HE HIMSELF TELLS OTHER PEOPLE NOT TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH.


What are you talking about? How do you think sport fighters train? They make fighting/sparring the core of their training. If you actually went out and trained at a good MMA gym or MT schools or boxing gym or BJJ school you'd see that for yourself.



Of course you develop fighting skill through "fighting" - but what he's talking about is sparring. Which is fine. But what's not fine is when he tells other people that their "sparring" is meaningless - but his "fighting" is okay. (What "fighting"? - the guy is sparring. If that much.)


Some sparring is fighting (when you spar, you should be practicing your fighting). Realistic sparring is fighting. But not everyone who spars is doing realistic sparring. Lots of people call what they do "sparring" and it is completely unrealistic.

And, the critical thing in sparring is the level of our opponents.



What a clown.

Says the guy who steadfastly refuses to go train at a decent grappling gym (see a pattern?) but is learning "catch" via video and teaching/rolling with his unskilled students.

[t_niehoff]

rolling is fighting without the punches, so thats really fighting.


Yes. If you don't train BJJ, then most advanced white belts and certainly anyone above that level could easily beat you on the ground.



Chisao is fighting without the grappling so it isn't fighting.


Chi sao ISN'T fighting.



Wake up man rolling is the ***** version of fighting on the ground. How many BJJ guys have been screwed by punching them in the face. I think gracie found that out, if he didn't just pull kimos hair like a little girl he would have been smashed. If you don;t strike, dont hit as hard as you can, do go to the ground and generally put any rules into the way you train then you are not fighting.


Go to a good BJJ or MMA school and get your eyes opened. What you are saying is compete nonsense.

The Gracies have fought hundreds of no rules fights over the years.

Striking is one element on the ground, but without controlling the opponent, which you can only develop through grappling, it won't help you. That's why GNPers all have strong wrestling bases.



Chi sao, just like rolling makes you emphasis one aspect of the fight.


Chi sao isn't realistic, so it doesn't matter how many aspects it has. It can't develop realistic skill. If you try to make chi sao realistic, it stops being chi sao and becomes sparring (fighting on the inside).



So if chi sao is redundant then rolling with a pyjama on is just as stupid if you think you are fighting.


I'm not saying chi sao is "redundant" -- I'm saying it is a platform for learning the tools of WCK. But it doesn't develop fighting skill. Fighting skill comes from realistic sparring, ie. fighting.



Hence why I do my VT, Ground work and proper spar as seperate things. I do chisao, roll and then combine it all when sparing. This is the closest I can get to fighting while still being realativly safe (I normally train at work and as I found out last week trying to explain why you poped your own knee out is hard in a health and saftey way. Its funny The guy had my leg and I was sitting on his belly I went for a knee bar but realised I didn't have my hooks in. I twisted to try to hook his leg (I forgot he already had a lock on my leg) twisted my waist and popped my knee out.

Oh, Lord.

[Ultimatewingchun]

A GOOD FRIEND ON THIS FORUM HAS URGED ME TO RESPOND TO A CERTAIN POST BY TERENCE NIEHOFF…

and even though I have had Niehoff on IGNORE for close to two years now, and therefore have only read any of his posts when someone else has quoted them…nonetheless...

my friend is indeed correct - this one needs a direct reading and a direct response. So here it is:

FIRST, NIEHOFF QUOTED ME...

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
Of course they are blocks, Jim. And redirections, parries, etc. There is no question or debate about these things. NONE.That is, by anyone who has any real skill in wing chun.

And especially someone with 20+ years of wing chun.
...............................

AND NIEHOFF RESPONDED WITH THIS:
No, they are not blocks, deflections,etc. They are bridge hands. Bridge hands can block, deflect, etc. but they also do much, much more. They are "handles" that connect us to our opponent, and we can use those "handles" to control them.
……………………………………

***AND BTW, he was responding to a previous post of mine which stated that wing chun moves like pak, lop, bong, tan, lan, bil, jut, garn, gum, chuen, etc. were blocks, deflections, and parries that are essential to any real wing chun fighting skill.

So here he is first stating that they are not blocks, deflections, parries, etc. – and then immediately states that well, they “could be” those things (he can’t have it both ways)…

and then goes on to reveal his main thrust (while simultaneously revealing something else about himself that was clearly unintended)…

The main thrust being that he looks upon these wing chun moves primarily as a means to go to some form of clinch or semi clinch mode (which he refers to as "attached" fighting via “handles” to control the opponent).

AND WHILE I HAVE BEEN SAYING SIMILAR THINGS FOR YEARS (without using terms like “attached” or “handles”)…nonetheless…THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS POSITION AND MINE.

What he reveals about himself unintentionally is the fact that HE can’t (as in doesn’t know how to) use these moves AS BLOCKS, PARRIES, DEFLECTIONS, ETC. And so he disparages others who can, and tries to ad hominem or give false and faulty analysis of vids, fights, and sparring sessions that show how these moves CAN BE USED.

Hence his contention that wing chun is simply “attached” fighting. I understand that misery so often loves company; but I, for one, am not interested in attending this party.

The fact is that the truth about wing chun on this matter is the reverse of what Niehoff says:

Blocks, strikes, parries, and deflections ARE PRIMARY, and the "handles" and "attachment" as controlling moves are SECONDARY.

It's a STRIKING system, and while some elements of "dirty boxing" are part of the package - actual "attachment" (and clinch/semi clinch) fighting is NOT part of any wing chun system. (Although WENG CHUN does get closer to "attached" fighting in this regard).

Now do I believe that clinch and semi-clinch fighting is important in the overall scheme of things? Of course.

Can these aforementioned wing chun moves be a "bridge" to such even closer quarter fighting? Yes, again.

But first things first. Learn and get skilled in the PRIMARY function of wing chun: punching people out while using the other moves as a means to that end - and skill in using moves like pak, lop, bong, tan, lan, bil, jut, garn, gum, chuen, etc. as means of blocking, parrying, and redirecting....and yes...CONTROLLING the opponent is first and foremost in this regard.

[YungChun]

Stylistic choices aside.... We all know and have known that Chun and just about any other Chinese Martial Art has something called energy issuing.. Energy issuing known by other terms, pressuring, breaking structure, etc are core components of Chun and most any other CMA, especially SCMA..

So while many of these tools can "block" and we all know "blocks" are low % they clearly do much more.. Given that, blocking and covering becomes a minor role for these tools because no block, no cover was or can ever be offensive, they cannot break structure (something all Chun does) and regardless of how one refers to these actions, "attach", "issue energy", "break structure", "steal balance", etc---blocking is a very small part unless by block we mean the above offensive, energy issuing tactics that offer some kind of control--no not an MMA clinch, IMO, but a SCMA structure attack.

Even in other styles like Karate, etc, exponent's are talking/using these tools more offensively, using them as weapons.. Offensive is the way to go, taking things away from the opponent, which again, (passive) blocks, in any style don't/can't do.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"blocking and covering becomes a minor role for these tools because no block, no cover was or can ever be offensive." (Jim/Yung Chun)
..........................

***WE'RE NOT always on offense. And if you're going to fight in close quarters - as the main feature of your offensive striking/punching game, which is what wing chun is - then you better know how to use the moves that were mentioned as blocks, as parries, as redirections, and so on.

[Wayfaring]

So while many of these tools can "block" and we all know "blocks" are low % they clearly do much more.. Given that, blocking and covering becomes a minor role for these tools because no block, no cover was or can ever be offensive, they cannot break structure (something all Chun does) and regardless of how one refers to these actions, "attach", "issue energy", "break structure", "steal balance", etc---blocking is a very small part unless by block we mean the above offensive, energy issuing tactics that offer some kind of control--no not an MMA clinch, IMO, but a SCMA structure attack.


IMO anyone who thinks you do not need to train defensive techniques probably does not do a lot of live training. While being on offense is the goal, and turning a defense into an offense by good fundamental WCK is also our aim, the reality is that if you mix it up in any consistent fashion you will probably have someone who is able to mount an offensive attack against you. In that case you need to know how to recover.

[YungChun]

IMO anyone who thinks you do not need to train defensive techniques probably does not do a lot of live training.


Funny I would have said that about anyone holding to pure defense.. The oldest known tactic regarding such things being "The best defense is...." Not more defense... :D

1. They're not defensive techniques..

2. Anything that is purely defensive has no chance at converting..

3. In good Chun the "defense" and "offense" are not separate entities..

[Wayfaring]

Funny I would have said that about anyone holding to pure defense.. The oldest known tactic regarding such things being "The best defense is...." Not more defense... :D


All nice in theory. Do you train in an all out unrestricted live environment?

[YungChun]

All nice in theory. Do you train in an all out unrestricted live environment?

Have you?

Theory? WTF?

The ad hominem is offensive .

Again, I see it not as theory but as common sense and relatively common knowledge re Chun tools and tactics, not to mention generic sparring experience.....

What are you advocating anyway, blocking? Prolonged evasion? Training to run away? (are these hallmarks of a good fighter?) I have coached people to do all kinds of things in sport but most of what is Chun is not about pure defense, and that's no theory.

Most of these things/tools are for taking things away from the opponent, if you are going to intentionally NOT use them (train for defense?) for offense, where offense is defense then I'd consider that a tactical error.

It's not part of the art..

See a lot of defensive Chun winners on the full-contact thread?

Does this mean that you might not find yourself purely defensive at some point sure.. But if you are ever going to go offensive it starts with using all these things offensively.. That's where the challenge is not in using them passively or purely defensively...

Most good fighters IMO are going to try to convert sooner rather than later--and if you can't do that at some point--you've lost.

[Wayfaring]

Have you?

Theory? WTF?

The ad hominem is offensive .

Yes, do now.

I'm saying that someone without good defensive skills probably does not train with high quality opponents. Does that fit you? Everyone says they "spar" and train live.


Again, I see it not as theory but as common sense and relatively common knowledge re Chun tools and tactics, not to mention generic sparring experience.....

Then it probably fits that you don't train with people that can put you in trouble consistently.


What are you advocating anyway, blocking? Prolonged evasion? Training to run away? (are these hallmarks of a good fighter?) I have coached people to do all kinds of things in sport but most of what is Chun is not about pure defense, and that's no theory.

Advocating training with good enough people that might force you to learn defense.


Most of these things/tools are for taking things away from the opponent, if you are going to intentionally NOT use them (train for defense?) for offense, where offense is defense then I'd consider that a tactical error.

Isn't biu jee at least partially about recovering the line when you've lost it? Emergency tactics? Recovery techniques?

So you're not there yet?



See a lot of defensive Chun winners on the full-contact thread?

It's not part of the art..

Well, that answer says a lot.


Does this mean that you might not find yourself purely defensive at some point sure.. But if you are ever going to go offensive it starts with using all these things offensively.. That's where the challenge is not in using them passively or purely defensively...

Of course. And in training with lesser skilled people you can get away with it. But if you push yourself and get higher skilled and quality opponents it's inevitable that you will run into a situation where you are completely dominated in line, tactics, power, etc. What do you do?


Most good fighters IMO are going to try to convert sooner rather than later--and if you can't do that at some point--you've lost.

The answer that you convert defense to offense sooner rather than later or you've lost kind of indicates you aren't on defense much. It's the same kind of answer as once you go to the ground you've lost. A low skilled answer. So what if you face a good fighter that's better able to convert defense to offense and has your number? Do you quit or what?

[YungChun]

I'm saying that someone without good defensive skills probably does not train with high quality opponents. Does that fit you? Everyone says they "spar" and train live.


No, what you're saying is, if someone doesn't use my terminology but reports on Chun accurately then they couldn't possibly have valid (my) experience..and I will attack them..

You haven't addressed any of the points made...which concerned the nature of Chun tools and you're acting like a troll.


Advocating training with good enough people that might force you to learn defense.

Isn't biu jee at least partially about recovering the line when you've lost it? Emergency tactics? Recovery techniques?

This started with a discussion of using Chun tools as blocks; now you've tossed in BuiJee asking if I "recover enough"....lol

Do you even do Chun?

Then assuming if I don't use BJ to recover enough (which has almost nothing to do with the original points made except that BJ moves are not defensive either) that I'm "not there yet?"

When most fighters don't even attempt to hold the line?

You sound like some pompous ass making assumptions based on little to no knowledge of the art...and applying your BJJ game to Chun and making judgment calls based on your imagination..



Of course. And in training with lesser skilled people you can get away with it.

Yes if you're not using BJ enough then the people you spar with must suck... That's just f-ing brilliant..



But if you push yourself and get higher skilled and quality opponents it's inevitable that you will run into a situation where you are completely dominated in line, tactics, power, etc. What do you do?


You might actually lose..but I guess you always win so you haven't decided to train with good enough people yet to get there...huh? No biggie not everyone has the stones to do that..


The answer that you convert defense to offense sooner rather than later or you've lost kind of indicates you aren't on defense much.


Bull$hit... The "answer is" that anyone with any sense is trying to convert sooner rather than later... Or do you espouse waiting rather than working on converting sooner--and applying other arbitrary standards in your imaginary Chun fighting proficiency evaluation...?

The point--before you came up with all this BS--is that Chun tools are not defensive in nature--and they're not... They are for converting to attack; to take away something from the opponent regardless of defensive/offensive status...

I didn't make it up, I simply report it...and THAT is the issue at hand--try attacking THAT (the issue) instead of me.

[Wayfaring]

No, what you're saying is, if someone doesn't use my terminology but reports on Chun accurately then they couldn't possibly have valid (my) experience..and I will attack them..

Reports on Chun accurately. LOL. You have a pretty big head. I'm just making an observation, and the amount you are protesting pretty much shows me it's on the mark.


You haven't addressed any of the points made...which concerned the nature of Chun tools and you're acting like a troll.

The basic shapes of Chun - tan, bong, fuk - in the context of proper energies and facings are designed to present simultaneous offense and defense opportunities. There. Happy?

You haven't addressed any of my points, like getting honest about the quality of opponents you train with consistently. Low level? Beginners, mostly? You're a "sifu", right? Do you cross train with fighters? Consistent hard sparring alive sessions?



This started with a discussion of using Chun tools as blocks; now you've tossed in BuiJee asking if I "recover enough"....lol

Do you even do Chun?

So you are saying that you have never been taught that purpose of BJ? I've certainly heard that phrase quoted directly from Moy Yat. Do you do Chun? Why are you avoiding that aspect of this discussion?


You sound like some pompous ass making assumptions based on little to no knowledge of the art...and applying your BJJ game to Chun and making judgment calls based on your imagination..

I'm making calls based upon the conversation and my experience. Yes, when you train with talented people they put you in trouble. You should try it sometime - it actually helps raise your skill level a lot more than name-calling on the internet.


Yes if you're not using BJ enough then the people you spar with must suck... That's just f-ing brilliant..

Or to state it differently, if you are not being put in trouble by your sparring partners to the point it makes you increase your skill level with defensive tools, then you either have low level training partners or you really don't train live.

Of course both of those cases are the vast majority in most traditional training environments, so the observation your training falls there isn't a leap of logic by any means. You getting huffy about it is pretty much par for the course also.



Bull$hit... The "answer is" that anyone with any sense is trying to convert sooner rather than later... Or do you espouse waiting rather than working on converting sooner--and applying other arbitrary standards in your imaginary Chun fighting proficiency evaluation...?

The "answer is" in a realistic environment, if you are facing a skilled athletic, larger, and aggressive opponent they can crash your center with enough force and continuous pressure that all your "sense" about converting from defense to offense becomes just theory. So you either train the tools you have to recover or you have no tools.


The point--before you came up with all this BS--is that Chun tools are not defensive in nature--and they're not... They are for converting to attack; to take away something from the opponent regardless of defensive/offensive status...

See above. This type of thinking is why WCK "doesn't work" in that type of environment - nothing to do with the art - everything to do with how it's trained and the little adjustments you have to make there. People that are never in that scenario never learn that.

There are plenty of recovery tools in WCK - recovering line, space, structure.

I suppose if you are unfamiliar with them that calling the whole premise BS is one approach...

[YungChun]

Reports on Chun accurately. LOL. You have a pretty big head. I'm just making an observation, and the amount you are protesting pretty much shows me it's on the mark.

Says the Pot to the Kettle.. I protest against those who are ill mannered, who's heads are so immense that they talk about things they don't have knowledge of and toss baseless insults around...



The basic shapes of Chun - tan, bong, fuk - in the context of proper energies and facings are designed to present simultaneous offense and defense opportunities. There. Happy?


You need to stop pontificating on things and making judgments when you are not even educated on the subject in question.

Happy?

Not really but I can tell from your parroting that you have little or no knowledge of the art as I suspected and I think you're a troll or have some other agenda here..



You haven't addressed any of my points, like getting honest about the quality of opponents you train with consistently. Low level? Beginners, mostly? You're a "sifu", right? Do you cross train with fighters? Consistent hard sparring alive sessions?

I have no interest in feeding your troll.. I will only say I was probably sparring before you were born based on your adolescent tone...

I would suggest not making assumptions based on whether or not people who actually trained the art agree with your explanations.. Explanations which make no sense, and silly because you don't actually understand the subject and cannot discuss it without being a pompous ass or even knowing the difference..



So you are saying that you have never been taught that purpose of BJ? I've certainly heard that phrase quoted directly from Moy Yat. Do you do Chun? Why are you avoiding that aspect of this discussion?

What aspect of the discussion? Aspects you make up? You've avoided the entire subject and points made so far and you sound like a complete theoretician/noob in so far as Chun's tools and tactics go and you manage to use just about any and all logical fallacies in your replies..

Did you just roll off the turnip truck? I have been discussing all these things here for years....

None of the tools and techniques in Chun are "defensive". Recovery is not defense it's offense and recovery is not the sole domain of BJ..

Moreover, if you knew anything about the art and fighting with the art you would know that much of the "recovery" used in Chun won't apply when fighting modern fighters because they are not doing Chun... Thus, it sounds like you are completely clueless and have very uneven experience in any area pertaining to this subject to say the least...

Moreover, your disrespectful and presumptuous tone warrants no response at all..



I'm making calls based upon the conversation and my experience. Yes, when you train with talented people they put you in trouble. You should try it sometime - it actually helps raise your skill level a lot more than name-calling on the internet.


You are "making calls" and tossing insults based on semantics, IOW if I don't use and agree with your terms I must be wrong--a very simple minded approach especially when you don't even do Chun..

Here: I'll make "a call" based on your replies and my vast experience with the public: I think your a post op transsexual midget who enjoys having sex with German Shepards but couldn't punch your way out of a wet tissue bag...

Sorry in my book you're a troll. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the tools and tactics of Chun.. As such you are in no position to make "calls" on anything here, you should be politely asking questions since it's clear you don't know..

You can't get it through your thick head that there are no "defensive tools" in Chun..no matter how many times you say this..

Recovery is not defense it's offense. You very simply don't know what you are talking about..and clearly don't care either..and are happy to yap endlessly away..without any real discussion of the subject..cool..I will waste no more time on you.

But feel free to prove me wrong and go ahead and explain or better yet show how you or anyone uses Chun's "famous defensive tools" to beat more skilled opponents..

BTW there are your "defensive tools" on the other "really good Chun" thread.. Which would also be the "incorrect" use of the tools.

[t_niehoff]

A GOOD FRIEND ON THIS FORUM HAS URGED ME TO RESPOND TO A CERTAIN POST BY TERENCE NIEHOFF…

and even though I have had Niehoff on IGNORE for close to two years now, and therefore have only read any of his posts when someone else has quoted them…nonetheless...

my friend is indeed correct - this one needs a direct reading and a direct response.


Yes, Victor puts me on his ignore list but continues to respond to my posts time and time again. Pure genius.

Now, his rationale for responding is "his good friend" puts him up to it. LOL!



So here it is:

FIRST, NIEHOFF QUOTED ME...


Yes, because, you see, Victor, while you may have put me on your ignore list (and continued to respond), I never put anyone on an ignore list. So when you respond to my posts, I respond to you.



Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
Of course they are blocks, Jim. And redirections, parries, etc. There is no question or debate about these things. NONE.That is, by anyone who has any real skill in wing chun.

And especially someone with 20+ years of wing chun.
...............................

AND NIEHOFF RESPONDED WITH THIS:
No, they are not blocks, deflections,etc. They are bridge hands. Bridge hands can block, deflect, etc. but they also do much, much more. They are "handles" that connect us to our opponent, and we can use those "handles" to control them.
……………………………………

***AND BTW, he was responding to a previous post of mine which stated that wing chun moves like pak, lop, bong, tan, lan, bil, jut, garn, gum, chuen, etc. were blocks, deflections, and parries that are essential to any real wing chun fighting skill.


That's right, that what you believe they are because you mistaken view (because Cheung makes the same mistake) WCK as merely blocking and striking.

And since you have no "real WCK fighting skill", how can you know what that entails?



So here he is first stating that they are not blocks, deflections, parries, etc. – and then immediately states that well, they “could be” those things (he can’t have it both ways)…

and then goes on to reveal his main thrust (while simultaneously revealing something else about himself that was clearly unintended)…

The main thrust being that he looks upon these wing chun moves primarily as a means to go to some form of clinch or semi clinch mode (which he refers to as "attached" fighting via “handles” to control the opponent).


I said they were "bridge hands" (kiu sao) because that is what they are.



AND WHILE I HAVE BEEN SAYING SIMILAR THINGS FOR YEARS (without using terms like “attached” or “handles”)…nonetheless…THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS POSITION AND MINE.


You've not "been saying this for years" -- anyone who knows that they are bridge hands wouldn't be calling them "blocks" and "deflections."



What he reveals about himself unintentionally is the fact that HE can’t (as in doesn’t know how to) use these moves AS BLOCKS, PARRIES, DEFLECTIONS, ETC. And so he disparages others who can, and tries to ad hominem or give false and faulty analysis of vids, fights, and sparring sessions that show how these moves CAN BE USED.


Bridge hands can ALSO block, deflect, etc. Yes, Virginia, you can have it "both ways." They are not UNATTACHED blocks, deflections, etc. They work when you are in contact already -- are you ready for this? JUST LIKE CHI SAO TEACHES YOU.

And that's why you and Phil or no one else has ever been able to put up any videos (even though you guys love posting vids of yourself) being able to successfully and consistently use these things as blocks while in noncontact.

You really should learn WCK.



Hence his contention that wing chun is simply “attached” fighting. I understand that misery so often loves company; but I, for one, am not interested in attending this party.


WCK's approach, the faat mun, which is in all the older branches of WCK, and even in some of Yip branches, is to control the opponent while striking him. You can't control to any significant degree without contact. Our main, signature drill is a contact, attached drill. Most of the WCK movements are bridge hands. The kuit tells us WCK is fighting from the bridge. But, when you don't have the faatmun, the kuit, fail to grasp the TWC is only Cheung's retooling of the little WCK he did learn, etc., and when you won't look outside your little lineage, you end up believing that WCK is aform of kickboxing.



The fact is that the truth about wing chun on this matter is the reverse of what Niehoff says:

Blocks, strikes, parries, and deflections ARE PRIMARY, and the "handles" and "attachment" as controlling moves are SECONDARY.

It's a STRIKING system, and while some elements of "dirty boxing" are part of the package - actual "attachment" (and clinch/semi clinch) fighting is NOT part of any wing chun system. (Although WENG CHUN does get closer to "attached" fighting in this regard).

Now do I believe that clinch and semi-clinch fighting is important in the overall scheme of things? Of course.

Can these aforementioned wing chun moves be a "bridge" to such even closer quarter fighting? Yes, again.

But first things first. Learn and get skilled in the PRIMARY function of wing chun: punching people out while using the other moves as a means to that end - and skill in using moves like pak, lop, bong, tan, lan, bil, jut, garn, gum, chuen, etc. as means of blocking, parrying, and redirecting....and yes...CONTROLLING the opponent is first and foremost in this regard.

Blocking, parrying and deflections don't control. They deal ONLY with the attack --controlling deals with the opponent himself (his body).

It is apparent that you don't know WCK's outside game -- which is all about getting in quickly and safely. But there is so much you don't seem to know about WCK.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"And that's why you and Phil or no one else has ever been able to put up any videos...being able to successfully and consistently use these things as blocks while in noncontact." (Niehoff)

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


***I WAS COUNTING on Niehoff to make the mistake of saying something like this - and he didn't let me down.

The guy who has posted ZERO vids of himself doing anything once again tries to pass judgment on other people's vids.

What a load of hypocritical crap.

What other possible reason could there be for "Mr. thousands-of-posts that are critical of what other people who've at least had the balls to post a vid" have done NOT WANTING TO POST ANYTHING OF HIMSELF...

other than the fact that he doesn't want to be exposed as a fraud?

It never ends with this moron.

[t_niehoff]

"And that's why you and Phil or no one else has ever been able to put up any videos...being able to successfully and consistently use these things as blocks while in noncontact." (Niehoff)

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


***I WAS COUNTING on Niehoff to make the mistake of saying something like this - and he didn't let me down.

The guy who has posted ZERO vids of himself doing anything once again tries to pass judgment on other people's vids.

What a load of hypocritical crap.

What other possible reason could there be for "Mr. thousands-of-posts that are critical of what other people who've at least had the balls to post a vid" have done NOT WANTING TO POST ANYTHING OF HIMSELF...

other than the fact that he doesn't want to be exposed as a fraud?

It never ends with this moron.

Back to IGNORE.

The difference is that I think posting videos is essentially a waste of time (so WCK people who post vidoes are essentially only engaging in self-promotion), whereas guys like you seem to get your rocks off posting vids of yourself. So, that being the case, shouldn't we expect guys who love seeing themselves on youtube and who actually do post videos, to post videos that show they can do what they are teaching?

Why is it that we never see that? Instead we see Cheung, you, etc. posting videos -- like the judo chop shoot defense -- that is pure fantasy (here, let me show you how to deal with the hook, the shoot, etc. but don't ask to see it really working in fighting).

I, on the other hand, think that you need to experience these things firsthand. After all, WCK is based on feeling. But then, you put up umpteen vidoes of yourself teaching how not to do chi sao. What should I expect?

[Ultimatewingchun]

You're a fraud. And you don't have the balls to post anything of yourself.

No matter how much you talk, how many posts you make, how many excuses you give, and no matter how often you change the subject...

you're a fraud with no balls.

[Wayfaring]

I would suggest not making assumptions based on whether or not people who actually trained the art agree with your explanations.. Explanations which make no sense, and silly because you don't actually understand the subject and cannot discuss it without being a pompous ass or even knowing the difference..

You're starting to babble here. Which is what happens when you are unable to actually focus on the merits of the discussion.


What aspect of the discussion? Aspects you make up? You've avoided the entire subject and points made so far and you sound like a complete theoretician/noob in so far as Chun's tools and tactics go and you manage to use just about any and all logical fallacies in your replies..

Very funny. I posted a direct quote from your sigung, Moy Yat, regarding this exact topic. Yet you completely avoid that and say I'm using logical fallacies? Try responding to your sigung's quote instead. Or is he a theoretician / noob too?
Did you not learn from him? Or are you just a little clueless and a bit retarded? And all you've got is calling me a troll? Like I said, actually trying to apply this stuff against skilled opponents might help you as opposed to babbling over your oatmeal on the internet.


Did you just roll off the turnip truck? I have been discussing all these things here for years....

I've been here for years as well.


None of the tools and techniques in Chun are "defensive". Recovery is not defense it's offense and recovery is not the sole domain of BJ..

Spoken like someone completely clueless about actual live fighting scenarios. And about WCK. No tool is "defensive"? What about tan sau? Please explain the offense in that movement. How about bong sau? The high one. Please explain the offense in that movement. If you want to discuss WCK in detail then do so. All this mumbling and name calling just wastes mine and everyone elses time.


Moreover, if you knew anything about the art and fighting with the art you would know that much of the "recovery" used in Chun won't apply when fighting modern fighters because they are not doing Chun... Thus, it sounds like you are completely clueless and have very uneven experience in any area pertaining to this subject to say the least...

Complete BS fantasy. WCK recovery tactics of "wui ma" work against modern fighters, grapplers, etc. If you think that Chun only works against Chun, then why do you train it? In the off chance that an assailant in a back alley wants to chi sau with you?


Moreover, your disrespectful and presumptuous tone warrants no response at all..

Oh, and your tone is the perfect depiction of respect and knowledge. Bwaahaaa.


Here: I'll make "a call" based on your replies and my vast experience with the public: I think your a post op transsexual midget who enjoys having sex with German Shepards but couldn't punch your way out of a wet tissue bag...

It sounds like your projecting here. Don't lay your problems on me, Mr. Respect.


Sorry in my book you're a troll. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the tools and tactics of Chun.. As such you are in no position to make "calls" on anything here, you should be politely asking questions since it's clear you don't know..

Sure it's much easier to resort to labels and name calling when you have no logical response. Try making an intelligent argument. Or train with some skilled fighters. Either way it might better your life as opposed to what you're doing now.


You can't get it through your thick head that there are no "defensive tools" in Chun..no matter how many times you say this..

And if you think the dispersing energy of Tan is an offensive tool, then you've probably got zero offense yourself. And a very weak understanding of the fundamentals behind WCK.


Recovery is not defense it's offense. You very simply don't know what you are talking about..and clearly don't care either..and are happy to yap endlessly away..without any real discussion of the subject..cool..I will waste no more time on you.

In reality your position of "not wasting any more time on me" is more like "you have no fundamental explanation or understanding of what offense and defense are in WCK" and thus you are trying to save face by picking up your toys and going home.


But feel free to prove me wrong and go ahead and explain or better yet show how you or anyone uses Chun's "famous defensive tools" to beat more skilled opponents..

There's not really a need to prove you wrong. Anyone who uses WCK consistently in a live environment has a healthy concept of offense, defense, tools for each, and the application of each.

[JPinAZ]

For some reason many of you think that fighting means only fighting in competition. Fighting is fighting. The point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Period. So, the only training that develops your fighting skill is to practice fighting. I know BJJ BBs who have never "competed". But they get out and roll -- that is, fight -- every time they train.

WTF are you talking about?? Who said anything about fighting only being in competition?? You're an idiot, don't put words into my mouth.
BTW, fighting is any time you are in a FIGHT, not any time you 'train fighting'. Also, you don't 'practice fighting', that's the talk of true theoretical sitting-in-the-corner non-fighter. You either FIGHT or you train to fight. 'Practicing fighting' is what LARPers do.


Do I fight? Yup. Every time I go to BJJ class, every time I go to MMA class, every time I go to WCK "class".

Showing up to class, putting in your mouthguard and saying 'coach I'm here' and then sitting on the sidelines isn't fighting, that's 'going to class'. Just like going to a workshop and sitting in a corner ;)
Fighting is fighting, going to class is what you do because you can't/don't fight (or worse, don't even know what it is).

I give credit to Phil and his guys showing clips of themselves 'fighting' - at whatever level they are at - and posting it up on youtube. Something you are too chicken sh!t to do. Not really the posting up the vids part (which you are that too), but more just proving you've fought one day in your life. Again, 'going to class' isn't fighting. That doesn't even imply you train. Maybe the other guys you give nut-underdogs too fight at those same 'classes', but obviously you don't.


So? You think what matters is not your skill or whether you can make your WCK work but that you are willing to tape yourself and put it on the internet? That this is what matters?

Again, stop being an idiot for 10 seconds (if that's possible) and stop putting words into my mouth. What matters is that you aren't afraid to step up and test your skills. What I find commendable is that they (Phil and his guys) aren't afraid to put it out there and show where they are at - and not giving a sh!t what scared little trolling key-board LARPers that 'go to class' and call it fighting when the play fighting say about them.

FWIW, whether or not I or who I train with put up clips has nothing to do with this. I'm not the one coming on here, saying everyone here sucks, only I have the 'real WC', only I know how to train correctly, etc as you do. Nor am I ro anyone I train with coming here saying everyone's videos suck. That's what LARPer wannabe, no-skill jealous trolls like you do because you're a hateful little man who's still bitter at the world because he was too stupid to realize he wasted nearly 20 years on crap WC and still had not one ounce of fighting skill.

[YungChun]

Very funny. I posted a direct quote from your sigung, Moy Yat, regarding this exact topic. Yet you completely avoid that and say I'm using logical fallacies? Try responding to your sigung's quote instead. Or is he a theoretician / noob too?
Did you not learn from him? Or are you just a little clueless and a bit retarded?
You didn't quote him... You parroted something you thought he said..

Moreover, he was not my SiGung... So it's clear you just make assumptions without even bothering to check, think or educate yourself before opening your big mouth......again and again.



I've been here for years as well.

The point wasn't time in, you silly man, the point is what was written during that time.. Clearly none of what I (and others) wrote you read, or you can't remember it, or you didn't understand it.



Spoken like someone completely clueless about actual live fighting scenarios. And about WCK. No tool is "defensive"? What about tan sau? Please explain the offense in that movement.

Look who is completely clueless lmao.. See once you actually begin to address the topic your cover is blown...you should have kept avoiding the subject matter.....whooops!

The final nail in your coffin is posting that you think Tan is a defensive tool, yes anyone here who actually knows what Wing Chun is, is now laughing at your silly, busted, ass..! lol

Congratulations! :D

You know nothing about Chun; you don't do Chun; you hide your identity and lack of Chun training, you're a troll and you weren't raised right.. lol

You apparently don't even read the forum where you pontificate on $hit you know nothing about..



How about bong sau? The high one. Please explain the offense in that movement. If you want to discuss WCK in detail then do so.

Why would I now have any desire to discuss Chun with the likes of you...?

[t_niehoff]

You're a fraud. And you don't have the balls to post anything of yourself.

No matter how much you talk, how many posts you make, how many excuses you give, and no matter how often you change the subject...

you're a fraud with no balls.

ROFLOL! Says the guys who learns catch from video and teaches it to his students all because he is afraid to go to a real grappling gym. Sorry, but you won't be seeing any video from me -- as I said, it's a waste of time.

Video won't ever convince you of anything. If it did, then you'd see the Cheung-Boztepe video and realize what Cheung is. If you could learn from video, you'd realize the reaching for punches -- to block and parry -- like Cheung teaches is a bad habit. And so on. Video hasn't helped you. And it won't. The only thing that can help you is for you to give yourself the right kind of experience, to go train with good fighters that can show you firsthand (in sparring) why so much of what you do is simply wrong. But, just like you won't go train with good grapplers to learn grappling, you won't go train with good fighters to learn how to fight well! All you can do is p1ss and moan that I won't show you how to do it! LOL!

Why is it you guys who love posting videos of yourselves showing how to deal with punches never show any videos of you actually doing any of that in fighting? Instead, all you do is try to avoid answering the question by crying about how other people should post videos and that they are frauds if they don't. Poor Victor.

[Ultimatewingchun]

My work is done here. You are what you are and everybody knows it.

Back to IGNORE.

[t_niehoff]

WTF are you talking about?? Who said anything about fighting only being in competition?? You're an idiot, don't put words into my mouth.
BTW, fighting is any time you are in a FIGHT, not any time you 'train fighting'. Also, you don't 'practice fighting', that's the talk of true theoretical sitting-in-the-corner non-fighter. You either FIGHT or you train to fight. 'Practicing fighting' is what LARPers do.


You wrote: "Funny, you never mentioned if you fought even once, just that the guys you 'train with' fight as part of their training.. There was no 'we' in that statement. So, unless you're speaking from your experience as a fighter."

And this shows that you don't appreciate that sparring is -- or at least should be -- fighting. What you do when you spar is practice fighting. It is just like when you swim, you practice swimming. When you run, you practice running. When you ride a bike, you practice riding a bike. When you surf, you practice surfing. Do you get the idea yet? This is why swimmers, runners, bicyclists, surfers, etc. develop skill. Because they are doing the activity itself as their training. They do X to get better at X. And that is why sport fighters develop so much better skill than TMAists -- they are practicing fighting as the core of their training (doing X to get better at X). They are not LARPING, they are fighting. The people who are LARPing are the TMAists who do forms, unrealistic drills, "tests of skill", etc.



Showing up to class, putting in your mouthguard and saying 'coach I'm here' and then sitting on the sidelines isn't fighting, that's 'going to class'. Just like going to a workshop and sitting in a corner ;)


You've obviously never trained at a BJJ or MT or MMA class.

And, btw, you seem to keep referencing the Ohio Frinedship seminar (sitting on the sidelines). You are misinformed (as usual). I didn't sit on the sidelines. I left. When Benny taught his chi sao seminar, I left (I didn't sit and watch).



I give credit to Phil and his guys showing clips of themselves 'fighting' - at whatever level they are at - and posting it up on youtube. Something you are too chicken sh!t to do.


And where are your clips, your sifu's clips, Garrett's clips? Are they all chicken sh1t too? Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?



Not really the posting up the vids part (which you are that too), but more just proving you've fought one day in your life. Again, 'going to class' isn't fighting. That doesn't even imply you train. Maybe the other guys you give nut-underdogs too fight at those same 'classes', but obviously you don't.


You would have seen for yourself that me and my whole group fight/spar if you had shown up to kick my ass as you said you were. ;) LOL!



Again, stop being an idiot for 10 seconds (if that's possible) and stop putting words into my mouth. What matters is that you aren't afraid to step up and test your skills. What I find commendable is that they (Phil and his guys) aren't afraid to put it out there and show where they are at - and not giving a sh!t what scared little trolling key-board LARPers that 'go to class' and call it fighting when the play fighting say about them.


So you think it commendable that people put up videos of themselves to promote themselves, which show them sparring but unable to do any of what they train to do? I see. Brilliant. Really brilliant. I expect nothing less from you.



FWIW, whether or not I or who I train with put up clips has nothing to do with this.


Sure it does since you call people who won't do that chicken sh1t.



I'm not the one coming on here, saying everyone here sucks,


I'm not saying "everyone here sucks". But if someone puts up a video where the are sparring and can't make what they train to do work, what would you call that? If they post videos showing "how to deal with punches" but then when you see them spar you don't see any of that, what would you call it?



only I have the 'real WC', only I know how to train correctly, etc as you do.


Again, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that if you want to learn how to train properly, then go train with sport fighters --with proven, good fighters -- they know how to best train. Nor am I saying that only I have the "real WCK". There is no such thing. There is only WCK. There is a core curriculum that MANY people have, and many other are missing elements of. Do you think this is untrue?



Nor am I ro anyone I train with coming here saying everyone's videos suck.


I'm not saying everyone's videos suck. I've pointed out videos that don't.



That's what LARPer wannabe, no-skill jealous trolls like you do because you're a hateful little man who's still bitter at the world because he was too stupid to realize he wasted nearly 20 years on crap WC and still had not one ounce of fighting skill.

You seem to be the hateful one. I have said before, that I like most other people in WCK, didn't see the limitations in both my training and in the curriculum I had learned, and that I was thankful to the WCML and Robert (and Rene, Hendrik, etc.) for helping me see that. BFD. Many of you still don't seem to recognize it. It's not that you're stupid, it's that you won't give yourself the right kind of experience.

[k gledhill]

Terence has spoken so it has to be so er or is it ?

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 714
Disclaimer: this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply.

Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Another previous one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.
Again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
Sounds like fighting to me...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't a "moment", it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
But wait, that's not right either:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Grappling is being in contact and trying to physically manipulate your opponent to reach your objective. That's what wrestlers do, that's what judoka do, that's what sumo wrestlers do,and that's what we do in WCK -- except we add strikesto the mix. Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.
and lastly again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling."
Which is it, is it grappling and striking (fighting), or is it an excersize? Is it wrestler's handfighting or is it a useless unrealistic excersize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh wait, one more time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
and
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Or, was it
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
...it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
Is it an excersize that teaches useful fighting skills or unrealistic excersize?
Is it grappling or isn't it?
Is it for fighting or isn't it?
No wonder there's confusion...
Reply With Quote

:D

terences understanding of Lop sao .....not :D for him to say lopsao is 'grappling' lmaorotf:D:D:D:D:D


pssst lop sao is to help 'turn' an opponent on their axis. A tactical idea terence .....

[Ultimatewingchun]

would be required to read your last post, k gledhill (Kevin).

The total contradictions and 180 degree reversals in the middle of the field by Niehoff are just friggin' amazing.

The guy is a joke.

[t_niehoff]

Terence has spoken so it has to be so er or is it ?

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 714
Disclaimer: this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply.

Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Another previous one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.
Again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
Sounds like fighting to me...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't a "moment", it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
But wait, that's not right either:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Grappling is being in contact and trying to physically manipulate your opponent to reach your objective. That's what wrestlers do, that's what judoka do, that's what sumo wrestlers do,and that's what we do in WCK -- except we add strikesto the mix. Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.
and lastly again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling."
Which is it, is it grappling and striking (fighting), or is it an excersize? Is it wrestler's handfighting or is it a useless unrealistic excersize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh wait, one more time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.
and
Previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.
Or, was it
Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
...it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.
Is it an excersize that teaches useful fighting skills or unrealistic excersize?
Is it grappling or isn't it?
Is it for fighting or isn't it?
No wonder there's confusion...
Reply With Quote

:D

terences understanding of Lop sao .....not :D for him to say lopsao is 'grappling' lmaorotf:D:D:D:D:D

It appears you aren't very bright either (like Jonathan). It's not difficult to understand.

Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise/drill that is a learning platform (to learn the contact tools of WCK). But it doesn't develop fighting skill (the ability to use those tools in fighting). That only comes from fighting.

Chi sao is a contact/attached exercise. Since it is attached, where we maintain sustained contact, it is grappling. Not a form of grappling, not a style of grappling, but grappling -- that also involves striking. And since WCK's method is to control while striking, it makes sense that you'd have a teaching platform to learn controlling while striking.

And chi sao, like all grappling, is primarily concerned with controlling the opponent.

Lop sao is likewise a grappling move (you grab and pull) where you control the opponent to set up your striking. Gosh, what a surprise!

PS - how else can you learn contact/attached fighting skills but in a contact/attached mode or platform?

[t_niehoff]

The total contradictions and 180 degree reversals in the middle of the field by Niehoff are just friggin' amazing.


There are no contradictions or reversals in those posts. That you don't see that tells me you have limited reading comprehension skills (3rd grade level?).

[Graham H]

It appears you aren't very bright either (like Jonathan). It's not difficult to understand.

Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise/drill that is a learning platform (to learn the contact tools of WCK). But it doesn't develop fighting skill (the ability to use those tools in fighting). That only comes from fighting.

Chi sao is a contact/attached exercise. Since it is attached, where we maintain sustained contact, it is grappling. Not a form of grappling, not a style of grappling, but grappling -- that also involves striking. And since WCK's method is to control while striking, it makes sense that you'd have a teaching platform to learn controlling while striking.

And chi sao, like all grappling, is primarily concerned with controlling the opponent.

Lop sao is likewise a grappling move (you grab and pull) where you control the opponent to set up your striking. Gosh, what a surprise!

T,

If Chi Sau is an unrelalistic exercise then why even include it in the system??? an your ideas are getting worse the more I read . I dont think you are brainless FWIW but your idea of VT absolutely sucks!!!!

How can you say Chi Sau doesn't develop fighting skill. Of course it f***king does!!!! Thats what it is for!!! I can see why your Chi Sau doesn't develop fighting skills......its because you are doing it wrong mate!!!

Your "theoretical non fighters" idea is nonsense but yet you keep throwing it at everybody on here. Why???? What have YOU done??? Where is the footage of YOU with your WCK MMA BS??? I reckon you should put up or shut up. PLEASE!!!!

Chi Sau is NOT totally an attached exercise!!!!! The attached part is there for a specific purpose but the idea is how we can learn to break free from contact and obstruction should our punches encounter it in a fight. YOUR way will only work WCK vs WCK whereas my idea is how we can fight against anybody. This is why you guys have to cross train and add other things into the system.....because your WCK is flawed.

All I see when I watch the videos you put up is two people doing what we can do already. We can already fight that way without MA's. In my lineage we train to correct those errors and by gradually increasing the intensity we learn to fight using Ving Tsun in the mess that is fighting.

What I would suggest to you is Terence that you QUIT Wing Chun and concentrate on MMA. Can you make that your Christmas present to me???

Chi Sau and Lap Sau are NOT grappling exercises. YOU and your peers have turned it into grappling exercises but that is not correct IMO.. I would sooner practice origami than practice your system of WCK!!!!

Lots of love and kisses

"Unattached Graham H":p

GH

[t_niehoff]

T,

If Chi Sau is an unrelalistic exercise then why even include it in the system??? an your ideas are getting worse the more I read . I dont think you are brainless FWIW but your idea of VT absolutely sucks!!!!


Forms are unrealistic, san sao is unrealsitic, the dummy is unrealistic -- everything in the curriculum is unrealistc. And that is the TMA way of teaching, to teach things in via unrealistic exercises.



How can you say Chi Sau doesn't develop fighting skill. Of course it f***king does!!!! Thats what it is for!!! I can see why your Chi Sau doesn't develop fighting skills......its because you are doing it wrong mate!!!


No, it doesn't because your opponent is not really fighting you -- he is playing chi sao with you. If you don't know the difference, get a nonWCK person, start in contact and then fight. You will see that it doesn't "look" like chi sao but more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk

If you think chi sao develops fighting skill, then do THAT and see how well you can use what you practice in chi sao.

And, believing chi sao develops fighting skills proves you are a fantasy fu guy.



Your "theoretical non fighters" idea is nonsense but yet you keep throwing it at everybody on here. Why???? What have YOU done??? Where is the footage of YOU with your WCK MMA BS??? I reckon you should put up or shut up. PLEASE!!!!


People who make sparring the core of their training are fighters. People who do everything but spar -- like people who believe chi sao develops fighting skill -- are theoretical nonfighters. They believe that they know what works in fighting by not fighting, that they get better at fighting by not fighting, etc.



Chi Sau is NOT totally an attached exercise!!!!! The attached part is there for a specific purpose but the idea is how we can learn to break free from contact and obstruction should our punches encounter it in a fight. YOUR way will only work WCK vs WCK whereas my idea is how we can fight against anybody. This is why you guys have to cross train and add other things into the system.....because your WCK is flawed.


You have it backwards. That is what comes from being a theoretical nonfighter. And from not knowing much about WCK. The method of WCK comes from our ancestors, not from Bayer or even WSL. The kuit tells us if there is no bridge, create one. Why? To break free? LOL! You think that our signature exercise, what WCK is known for, chi sao, is really just to teach you how to clear an obstruction? You really need to get out and learn WCK.



All I see when I watch the videos you put up is two people doing what we can do already. We can already fight that way without MA's. In my lineage we train to correct those errors and by gradually increasing the intensity we learn to fight using Ving Tsun in the mess that is fighting.


But you don't do that -- it is a theory. You have someone who can't doing it "correcting" what he believes are errors, but he is only teaching you how to fail. If he can't do it, how can he teach you to do it?

The point of that video is to show you what it will be like, and simply throwing WCK punches won;t get you far in dealing with that. You are not going to be facing someone throwing WCK straight, elbow down punches.



What I would suggest to you is Terence that you QUIT Wing Chun and concentrate on MMA.


You don't get it, I do MMA to make my WCK better. We are only as good as our sparring/training partners.



Chi Sau and Lap Sau are NOT grappling exercises. YOU and your peers have turned it into grappling exercises but that is not correct IMO.. I would sooner practice origami than practice your system of WCK!!!!


Chi sao/lop sao both are exercises where you maintain sustained contact. Sustained contact is grappling. In chi sao you push, pull, wedge, lift, press, twist, jerk, etc. your opponent to break his structure so as to be able to control him. All of that is grappling.

In fact, let's look at what one of WSL's preeminent students, Gary Lam, says about chi sao

http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?view=article&catid=34%3Aarticles&id=71%3Awing-chun-qi-sao-training-by-gregory-e-leblanc&option=com_content&Itemid=113

and

http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?view=article&catid=34%3Aarticles&id=68%3Agary-lam-wing-chun-an-introduction-by-gregory-e-leblanc&option=com_content&Itemid=113

[goju]

And this shows that you don't appreciate that sparring is -- or at least should be -- fighting. What you do when you spar is practice fighting. It is just like when you swim, you practice swimming. When you run, you practice running. When you ride a bike, you practice riding a bike. When you surf, you practice surfing. Do you get the idea yet? This is why swimmers, runners, bicyclists, surfers, etc. develop skill. Because they are doing the activity itself as their training. They do X to get better at X. And that is why sport fighters develop so much better skill than TMAists -- they are practicing fighting as the core of their training (doing X to get better at X). They are not LARPING, they are fighting. The people who are LARPing are the TMAists who do forms, unrealistic drills, "tests of skill", etc..


So in other words youre just a practice fighter or a simulation fighter? riiiight

no the reason why sport figthers develop so much skill is because is they actuallty get into competions where they take away the familarity of the gym partners. most of the protective gear and they test themselves in an environment where your opponent is attacking you full out.

Ater they competition they can acknowledge whether or not what they are working on truly works or not and they can go back to the drawing board and tweak their game.

since sparring isnt a complete pressure test you only have one slice of the metaphorical pie and your abilties as far as actual figthing goes remain theoretical until you actually get into a real full out fight.

[LoneTiger108]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk

If you think chi sao develops fighting skill, then do THAT and see how well you can use what you practice in chi sao.

And, believing chi sao develops fighting skills proves you are a fantasy fu guy.

Serously T? This clip again to show us what Chisau IS? Y'know it's actually quite funny that you think what is seen here is fighting "skill". Its like some comedy routine for brawlers that I remember as "windmill in!" NOT the best example of controlled Wing Chun sparring I've seen.


The kuit tells us if there is no bridge, create one. Why? To break free? LOL! You think that our signature exercise, what WCK is known for, chi sao, is really just to teach you how to clear an obstruction? You really need to get out and learn WCK.

And you need to learn when and where the kiut 'fits' T. This line is designed for Chisau, not Gorsau or Sansau. I believe you must know the difference, because that would be the whole basis for your attached/unattached argument imho.

If I'm fighting you, why would I want you to feel my bridge?


[Chi sao/lop sao both are exercises where you maintain sustained contact. Sustained contact is grappling. In chi sao you push, pull, wedge, lift, press, twist, jerk, etc. your opponent to break his structure so as to be able to control him. All of that is grappling.

I'm not so sure about this 'grappling' tag you seem to have put to these exercises either. Lapsau CAN be grappling, or what I call 'cum la' (chin na), IF it is used at the right time and progresses further than a 'trapping' hand, which is how it is mainly taught imho. Lapsau doesn't use the thumb as a grab does, as it's not intended like that T, but of course you know better than everyone here?

[t_niehoff]

Serously T? This clip again to show us what Chisau IS? Y'know it's actually quite funny that you think what is seen here is fighting "skill". Its like some comedy routine for brawlers that I remember as "windmill in!" NOT the best example of controlled Wing Chun sparring I've seen.


Seriously, can't you F#CKING read? I didn't say that clip was showing chi sao, I said "If you think chi sao develops fighting skill, then do THAT and see how well you can use what you practice in chi sao." You quoted it, for Christ's sake! That is fighting, not chi sao. That's what fighting will be like at that range.



And you need to learn when and where the kiut 'fits' T. This line is designed for Chisau, not Gorsau or Sansau. I believe you must know the difference, because that would be the whole basis for your attached/unattached argument imho.


Stop and THINK. We don't need to "create a bridge" when we do chi sao or gor sao as we START those exercises FROM A BRIDGE.

WCK's method is to control while striking the opponent. OK? To do that, we need to have a bridge because we can't control our opponent without one. So, if we don't have contact with an opponent but want to control while striking, then we first need to create a bridge (if one doesn't exist).



If I'm fighting you, why would I want you to feel my bridge?


WTF are you talking about? "Feel my bridge"? What?

WCK's method is to control while striking. My connection to you is the bridge. This is what I use to control you. I could care less whether you feel it or not.



I'm not so sure about this 'grappling' tag you seem to have put to these exercises either. Lapsau CAN be grappling, or what I call 'cum la' (chin na),


Look, chin na (Mandarin) or kum na (Cantonese) translates into "seizing and holding". What do you think seizing and holding is if not grappling?



IF it is used at the right time and progresses further than a 'trapping' hand, which is how it is mainly taught imho. Lapsau doesn't use the thumb as a grab does, as it's not intended like that T, but of course you know better than everyone here?

Are you an idiot? It doesn't matter whether you use your thumb to grab or not, it is still grappling (in BJJ they teach to do your kimura with a thumbless grab too, so I guess that isn't grappling by your definition!). Trapping is grappling. Lop sao is a "pulling hand", and pulling is grappling.

[Graham H]

Ah I give up posting against your posts T!!!!!!

You are just a useless fukk1ng idiot!!!! Keep on plugging away douche bag!!!

Regards

Fantasy Fu theoretical non fighter.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Welcome to the club, Graham H. ;)

[t_niehoff]

Welcome to the club, Graham H. ;)

Yup, two peas in a pod. :)

[k gledhill]

Terence your confused.....not surprising with all the confusing hand drills and sticking. You just need a little clarification and examples 1st hand. Your relying on grappling hands because like Graham mentions you haven't been shown how to clear the way to strike with techniques but rather make it easier for the oponent to feel YOU.

[jeetsao]

The video that T. posted demonstrates one reason I no longer use head gear and gloves. The equipment tends to develop a false sense of security. It is relied upon for defense. Sparing then becomes a brawl rather than an exercise to improve fighting skill. And no, this is not how fighting will always appear. A strike landed with correct force will put a stop to what is witnessed in the video. And while I agree that chi sao is not fighting, It certainly can develop skills that are used in fighting.

[couch]

No, it doesn't because your opponent is not really fighting you -- he is playing chi sao with you. If you don't know the difference, get a nonWCK person, start in contact and then fight. You will see that it doesn't "look" like chi sao but more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk


True that. Even getting two WCK practitioners to gear up and fight (starting in contact) will yield similar results to the video. Sh!t breaks down (and doesn't look like fancy-fu) at break-neck speed and power no matter where the party starts.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yes couch, but then it's no longer chi sao, it's gor sao (sparring).

Chi sao is not sparring or fighting - it's A DRILL that teaches a number of attributes, principles, techniques, and some strategy...ALL of which need to be adapted to all out gor sao/sparring, or fighting.

Similar in a way to how pummeling is a wrestling/grappling drill that gets adapted to competitive rolling or fighting. No one actually rolls competitively (or fights) within the parameters of pummeling - but it's a valuable drill nonetheless...precisely because of the wrestling/grappling attributes, principles, strategy, and some techniques that can be developed through it.

But when one is at a loss as to what can actually be gained from chi sao (as Niehoff is, for example), then naturally a vid like the one just mentioned will be looked upon as an example of what "real" chi sao should lead to and look like.

But this is an illusion.

[LoneTiger108]

Seriously, can't you F#CKING read? I didn't say that clip was showing chi sao, I said "If you think chi sao develops fighting skill, then do THAT and see how well you can use what you practice in chi sao." You quoted it, for Christ's sake! That is fighting, not chi sao. That's what fighting will be like at that range.

No it wouldn't T, if the person had trained anything from Wing Chun to a decent standard and they removed the gloves and headgear actual fighting would be a bit more bloody.


Stop and THINK. We don't need to "create a bridge" when we do chi sao or gor sao as we START those exercises FROM A BRIDGE.

Oh. You do that do you? That's not how I train dude. If you can't make the entry there is no chisau, and it sounds like you don't enter. Just waddle in to contact range do ya? Maybe that's why you feel like chisau is useless.


WTF are you talking about? "Feel my bridge"? What?

Now who can't read?? I said:

"If I'm fighting you, why would I want you to feel my bridge?"

I was saying that when I fight, I'm not going to let a (skilled) Wing Chun practitioner even touch my arms/bridges in any way. You wouldn't even see my hands!! I'll be raiding and getting away asap leaving as much damage as possible! Of course, this is against my belief because I don't like violence, but the point is very simple.

We train Chisau to help improve among the brotherhood. We don't fight ourselves with Chisau and we definitely don't fight others that way either!


WCK's method is to control while striking. My connection to you is the bridge. This is what I use to control you. I could care less whether you feel it or not.

No. Your restricted viewpoint of Wing Chun is to HAVE to control me whilst striking. So, if you actually read above, you're screwed...




Look, chin na (Mandarin) or kum na (Cantonese) translates into "seizing and holding". What do you think seizing and holding is if not grappling?

It's seizing and holding. For some reason, just the term grappling to me has images of semi naked men rolling on the floor and so maybe I need to adjust my mind?! Also throws me back to the Gi grappling days at Karate, which again is totally different to what I would practise Lapsau for.


Are you an idiot? It doesn't matter whether you use your thumb to grab or not, it is still grappling (in BJJ they teach to do your kimura with a thumbless grab too, so I guess that isn't grappling by your definition!)

I must be an idiot!? I don't need to do a BJJ class to know the difference between a thumb/no thumb grab dude and FWIW there's a lot of difference in intent, so throw this argument at someone who has time to read your stuff. If you want to talk WCK talk it, rather than refer to your apparent BJJ expertise!?

[t_niehoff]

No it wouldn't T, if the person had trained anything from Wing Chun to a decent standard and they removed the gloves and headgear actual fighting would be a bit more bloody.


That's how fighting in that range "looks."



Oh. You do that do you? That's not how I train dude. If you can't make the entry there is no chisau, and it sounds like you don't enter. Just waddle in to contact range do ya? Maybe that's why you feel like chisau is useless.


You are not "training". You are merely repeating the curriculum. Training involves fighting.

WCK's method is to get in and control the opponent while striking him. Getting in, or entering, is part of our method. We can't control him from the outside. And we can't control him without a bridge. And you don't enter to do chi sao. Chi sao is a drill/exercise.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I say? Either you are an idiot who can't read or you don't read what I say. I never said chi sao was "useless." It is a teaching platform.



Now who can't read?? I said:

"If I'm fighting you, why would I want you to feel my bridge?"

I was saying that when I fight, I'm not going to let a (skilled) Wing Chun practitioner even touch my arms/bridges in any way. You wouldn't even see my hands!! I'll be raiding and getting away asap leaving as much damage as possible! Of course, this is against my belief because I don't like violence, but the point is very simple.


That is not WCK's method of fighting. Stop telling me what you would do if you ever fought. That's all theory, all fantasy. I don't give a sh1t about what you believe you would or would not do.

When I get to the inside, I destroy my opponent's bridge/structure so it doesn't matter if he is touching me or not.



We train Chisau to help improve among the brotherhood. We don't fight ourselves with Chisau and we definitely don't fight others that way either!


Chi sao isn't fighting. It's not even close to fighting.



No. Your restricted viewpoint of Wing Chun is to HAVE to control me whilst striking. So, if you actually read above, you're screwed...


If you don't control your opponent he is free to do anything he wants, and can try to control you. WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him.



It's seizing and holding. For some reason, just the term grappling to me has images of semi naked men rolling on the floor and so maybe I need to adjust my mind?!


I can't help you if you like imagining semi-naked men. If that's how you roll, I have no problem with it.



Also throws me back to the Gi grappling days at Karate, which again is totally different to what I would practise Lapsau for.


Lop sao is a tactic to control the opponent while striking him.



I must be an idiot!? I don't need to do a BJJ class to know the difference between a thumb/no thumb grab dude and FWIW there's a lot of difference in intent, so throw this argument at someone who has time to read your stuff. If you want to talk WCK talk it, rather than refer to your apparent BJJ expertise!?

You are an idiot because you were suggesting that because you used a thumbless grab in your lop sao that it wasn't grappling. I pointed out that BJJ -- which obviously is grappling -- also uses a thumbless grab.

It is not how you grab that makes it grappling or not. Simply grabbing is grappling. Chi sao is grappling.

[t_niehoff]

Yes couch, but then it's no longer chi sao, it's gor sao (sparring).


Gor sao isn't sparring. It is free-style chi sao.



Chi sao is not sparring or fighting - it's A DRILL that teaches a number of attributes, principles, techniques, and some strategy...ALL of which need to be adapted to all out gor sao/sparring, or fighting.


Not quite. Chi sao (and gor sao) is an exercise to teach you how to use the WCK tools to control an opponent while striking him. The actions, tactics, "attributes", etc. are all goal-directed.



Similar in a way to how pummeling is a wrestling/grappling drill that gets adapted to competitive rolling or fighting. No one actually rolls competitively (or fights) within the parameters of pummeling - but it's a valuable drill nonetheless...precisely because of the wrestling/grappling attributes, principles, strategy, and some techniques that can be developed through it.


Pummeling is a drill to teach you and to develop your ability to fight for close-body control of an opponent. And again, the techniques, sensitivity, etc. is all directed toward a specific goal.



But when one is at a loss as to what can actually be gained from chi sao (as Niehoff is, for example), then naturally a vid like the one just mentioned will be looked upon as an example of what "real" chi sao should lead to and look like.

But this is an illusion.

Please point me to where I ever said that this clip was an example of what chi sao should look like. Show me. Because you can't. Because you are either a liar or you simply can't read. I said THAT clip showed what fighting would look like at that range. Idiot.

[JPinAZ]

You wrote: "Funny, you never mentioned if you fought even once, just that the guys you 'train with' fight as part of their training.. There was no 'we' in that statement. So, unless you're speaking from your experience as a fighter."And this show......................BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.............it's that you won't give yourself the right kind of experience.

All garbage.
"You're garbage.
Your WC is garbage.
Your Sifu is garbage.
His Videos are garbage."
See, I can talk T-speak too! think that about sums it up... :rolleyes:

Want more garbage? read the link below! :eek:

[JPinAZ]

Terence your confused.....not surprising with all the confusing hand drills and sticking. You just need a little clarification and examples 1st hand. Your relying on grappling hands because like Graham mentions you haven't been shown how to clear the way to strike with techniques but rather make it easier for the oponent to feel YOU.

oh no, he's been shown... he had a whole whopping "100 hours" of training that magically reversed some 20+ years of fumbling around like an idiot with crap WC he was too stupid to realize he couldn't even make work! :rolleyes::eek:

[t_niehoff]

All garbage.
"You're garbage.
Your WC is garbage.
Your Sifu is garbage.
His Videos are garbage."
See, I can talk T-speak too! think that about sums it up... :rolleyes:

Want more garbage? read the link below! :eek:

Poor, Jonathan. He has low reading comprehension skills. And poor critical thinking skills. And he doesn't seem able to post any substantive WCK posts. I wonder why? ;)

He tries to be clever with his "link" but it only shows that he isn't very bright.

As I explained to another who quoted your "link",

Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise/drill that is a learning platform (to learn the contact tools of WCK). But it doesn't develop fighting skill (the ability to use those tools in fighting). That only comes from fighting.

Chi sao is a contact/attached exercise. Since it is attached, where we maintain sustained contact, it is grappling. Not a form of grappling, not a style of grappling, but grappling -- that also involves striking. And since WCK's method is to control while striking, it makes sense that you'd have a teaching platform to learn controlling while striking (by practicing controlling while striking).

And chi sao, like all grappling, is primarily concerned with controlling the opponent.

Now, maybe you can with this in mind (if you can hold it in your mind) you can review the various snippets you posted together and see now that it makes sense. But, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit.

[t_niehoff]

oh no, he's been shown... he had a whole whopping "100 hours" of training that magically reversed some 20+ years of fumbling around like an idiot with crap WC he was too stupid to realize he couldn't even make work! :rolleyes::eek:

I guess that means you are a bigger idiot since you are still fumbling around with crap WCK and don't know it? And, you're not even trying to make it work.

Yeah, you know, after 17 years of doing WCK, it didn't take all that long to learn those fundamentals that I was missing. The hard part came AFTER I learned it -- in putting in the hard work of making it functional.

The truth is as near as your closest MMA gym. Go and see if you can do what you train to do as you train to do it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The truth is as near as your closest MMA gym. Go and see if you can do what you train to do as you train to do it." (Niehoff)
.......................

***THE TRUTH is as near as your first posted vid, proving that you actually do even half of what you say you do. And until then - it's all made up bull5hit by a charlatan keyboard warrior.

[JPinAZ]

"The truth is as near as your closest MMA gym. Go and see if you can do what you train to do as you train to do it." (Niehoff)
.......................

***THE TRUTH is as near as your first posted vid, proving that you actually do even half of what you say you do. And until then - it's all made up bull5hit by a charlatan keyboard warrior.

haha, forget the vid, we know it's never coming. ;)

Actually, he's never said he's done anything, except suck at WC for 17 years.
He very careful about that. Oh, he talks about how 'all the guys at the gym' spar and fight, and how 'they' do it, or how 'big brother alan' does it, (nut swing, nut swing, & big nut underdogs all day long). But you'll never read anywhere about how he actually does it, who he spars with, or how often, etc.
Oh, he might mention a few names of some guys he's been in the same room with that do what he wishes he was doing, but that's about it. He's not a fraud, a fraud would have actually had to admitted to themselves doing anything! :eek:
He's a wannabe no-skilll LARPer little troll of a man. That's much worse than a fraud IMO

[t_niehoff]

"The truth is as near as your closest MMA gym. Go and see if you can do what you train to do as you train to do it." (Niehoff)
.......................

***THE TRUTH is as near as your first posted vid, proving that you actually do even half of what you say you do. And until then - it's all made up bull5hit by a charlatan keyboard warrior.

Made up bullsh1t? Funny, but MY sifu posts here. Of course, even when he vouches for me and tells you that he's visited me, met the guys I train with, saw our level of training, you still refuse to believe him. Let's see, you've got Alan and Dave McK both of whom are students of Robert, and they too both do BJJ and MMA. Do you think it is mere coincidence that we all do? And that both of them, more or less, agree with me (and have said so on this forum). Or that our ex-resident MMA fighter agreed with me?

And look at who agrees with you. Yup.

Oh, but Victor won't be satisfied until I post a video. Sorry, but I will leave that to lame asses like yourself. You are, after all, the guy who lived close to several of the best MMA and BJJ/grappling gyms in the world, yet chose to learn "catch wrestling" off of videos and practice it with his untrained students rather than step into a gym with real fighters.

The truth, Victor, IS as close as your nearest MMA gym -- only you've proven that you are afraid of the truth.

And, please, save us how you are going to ignore me -- how many times in this thread have you said that!?

[goju]

And look at who agrees with you. Yup.

Oh, but Victor won't be satisfied until I post a video. Sorry, but I will leave that to lame asses like yourself. You are, after all, the guy who lived close to several of the best MMA and BJJ/grappling gyms in the world, yet chose to learn "catch wrestling" off of videos and practice it with his untrained students rather than step into a gym with real fighters.

The truth, Victor, IS as close as your nearest MMA gym -- only you've proven that you are afraid of the truth.


im sure theres more than few MMA gym in your state to train at and yet you chose to train at a rec center with some "guys" who practice fight

kind of being a hyprocite there old boy;)

[t_niehoff]

The video that T. posted demonstrates one reason I no longer use head gear and gloves.


Which only means that you are not sparring.



The equipment tends to develop a false sense of security. It is relied upon for defense.


No it doesn't. It provides protection if your defense fails. But, if you want to spar without a cup, go right ahead.



Sparing then becomes a brawl rather than an exercise to improve fighting skill.


No, when you really go all out, fighting is going to look like a brawl. That's what your opponent will be doing to you -- so you need to learn to operate in that chaos, in that violent, intense mess.



And no, this is not how fighting will always appear.


Yes, it will at that range. All you need to do is get in that range and go all out, and you will see.



A strike landed with correct force will put a stop to what is witnessed in the video.


There's no doubt that a good,well-timed, powerful strike CAN put a stop to things, but you need to be able to land a good, well-timed, powerful strike to an opponent who is doing that, in that mess, in that chaos, and that isn't easy. How do you develop the ability to do that? By practicing trying to land good, well-timed, powerful shots IN that situation. You don't develop it by not doing it.

And, what happens if you don't land your good, well-timed, powerful shot?



And while I agree that chi sao is not fighting, It certainly can develop skills that are used in fighting.

No it doesn't. You can learn various contact actions and tactics in chi sao. But because your opponent is not behaving like he would in a fight, you are not learning to deal with what he would do in fighting, not the actions, not the intensity (speed or power), etc. To both learn how to and develop skill dealing with someone genuinely fighting you, you need to have them genuinely fight you. Practicing not fighting (chi sao) won't develop fighting skill.

But, that is what all theoretical nonfighters want to believe: that they can learn and develop fighting skill by not fighting.

[t_niehoff]

im sure theres more than few MMA gym in your state to train at and yet you chose to train at a rec center with some "guys" who practice fight

kind of being a hyprocite there old boy;)

Troll. You don't even practice WCK and never have. I've posted where (the MMA/BJJ gyms) I train before, go look it up if you are interested. You never make any substantive posts. You are just a troll. Go learn WCK. Troll.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The fact that Robert says he's visited you and that you're okay doesn't mean diddly-squat.

So again, REAL evidence - such as a vid...that you do even half of what you say you do....that's what's needed for Terence Niehoff to be taken seriously.

Until then, LOFL.

[goju]

Troll. You don't even practice WCK and never have. I've posted where (the MMA/BJJ gyms) I train before, go look it up if you are interested. You never make any substantive posts. You are just a troll. Go learn WCK. Troll.


what actual fighters (in other words guyswho have competed) have you trained and sparred with on a regular basis? Are you part of a fighters camp ? What rank do you hold in BJJ?


Anyone can go train at an mma gym it doesnt mean much unless youre going there to compete and are a member of a camp, Outside of that ive noticed like most MA schools the majority of the members are just people looking to get in shape and maybe learn abit of self defense.

[t_niehoff]

The fact that Robert says he's visited you and that you're okay doesn't mean diddly-squat.

So again, REAL evidence - such as a vid...that you do even half of what you say you do....that's what's needed for Terence Niehoff to be taken seriously.

Until then, LOFL.

Oh, I think Robert will tell you that I am more than "OK." :)

But Victor, if you want me to teach you WCK, then you need to visit me. I won't show you how to do it on video.

BTW, what I do isn't that difficult. You can do it too. Just go join a BJJ/MMA gym. That's the first step. You can do it. All you have to do is leave your ego at the door. And take a lot of beatings. If you really want to develop fighting skill, there is no other way. Why won't you do it?

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's not about learning WCK from you. I'm sure there's nothing you could teach me that I didn't learn decades ago.

It's about you providing evidence to the forum (of which I'm a member) that you know ANYTHING worthwhile about WCK, and about fighting in general, be it mma or otherwise.

BUT ESPECIALLY WING CHUN.

That's what this forum is, and there's much evidence within your posts to suggest that you hardly know and can apply anything at all. In sparring, in chi sao, in fighting, in whatever category you wish to talk about.

But yet you constantly criticize what other people say and do regarding wing chun.

And you never back up any of this talk with even a shred of evidence. So again, without at least a vid posted of YOU, TERENCE NIEHOFF, doing something even closely related to wing chun...

you're just full of 5hit.

And you're fooling basically nobody about this anymore. The game is pretty much up.

[YungChun]

What a f-ing load..

Like everyone would just run the f#ck down to the local MMA gym if only Terence would post a clip of himself sparring... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.!

Actually, Robert didn't say T was "OK" he said Terence was "NUTS"... Clue anyone?

Also Alan has said T trains--that means spars--with "real fighters" which should offer more proof than a simple clip of two guys fighting...

I guess it's just one enormous conspiracy... So no, no one should go and train with good MMA fighters because it will make your kung-fu weak and somehow "mixed" with ill informed Western ideas that would no doubt take all the fun out of your kung fu......

Dan Inosanto began training in BJJ at 60 and got his BB at 70..... If that doesn't inspire anyone even without a f-ing video....I don't know what would.

[Yoshiyahu]

By Facing I susppose you mean using Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma. Wing Chun has various stances the three main stances are Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma, Forward Bracing or Advancing stance and hanging horse. But you wouldn't hold a knee up in actual fight. The purpose is to get you comfortable with with raising your knee while being able to balance for that split second you have your leg in the air. Also you don't fight the entire fight in forward bracing stance. that would be static. You may have to turn, back step front step or side step.

It is true that Yee Gee Kin Yeung Ma is practice stance. But you can also use the stance in fight. i wouldnt start out that way unless your so skilled very few people can defeat you. Forward Advancing stance is better for medium and long range fighting. YGKYM is better for close range attacks like throwing elbows where you need to shift the body to get full swing of motion with elbow strikes. But the YGKYM is not effective if your unattached. The best bet is to control your opponent and lead him or pull him into a strike.

But the problem is when people think of stance they think static. Depending on the pressure of your opponent or your opportunity you may never have a chance to fully use YGKYM or the facing stance. You may never use raising knee to defend or attack with. it depends on your aggressor. But the key is to feel for changes and allow your opponent to lead you to openings.

If you seriously think your going to stand in YGKYM against a karate guy or some boxers your crazy. The Kicks or right hooks will come flying at you. You will need to be in advantageous posistion to fully utilize this technique. But it can be done, you just need to know and feel when you can. If you don't practice using your YGKYM in actual sparring or fighting that is okay your wing chun is just missing an element. Chi Sau and various drills should be eventually incoroprated into sparring so you can learn how to implement them and make them functional in an actual fighting scenario. Until then your WC techniques are just theoretical. Very Few Wing Chun people actually get pass Chain Punch, Front kick and Wing Chun guard. The majority of most WC people who spar is just those three techniques. No wonder they get their hats handed to them. Very few people are teaching students how to implement the techniques of WC outside of drills and chi sau.

Each technique trains something. Chi Sau, the wooden man, The Forms, The wall bag, Punching and kicking in the air, two man drills, etc. These are for conditioning purposes to mold and shape your techniques into a wing chun mode. once you master shape and form you should apply your muscle memory to actual application, implementation and performance under pressure. Wing Chun core is attached fighting. Its not an outside fighting system. WC is about fighting on the inside. An to do so you want to limit your opponent ability to mount an attack. You also want to increase your options by opening your opponents doors while closing yours. Thats what lop sau, Chi Sau, Tan da, Jut Da, Pak Da, etc teach you to do. You can use these techniques to open an opponents door while fighting. But you need to feel and know when you have the opportunity to do so. If you practice implementing these things when you fight different opponents you will get better at Wing Chun. An your WC will be actually more than Kwoon WC. It will be alive. Wing chun is much more than kick and chain punch and leg shoot. Its a system of numerous tools. If you just start implenmenting maybe three or four tools in sparring a year (better yet every month)your WC will change for the better. Start using Tan sau, Bong Sau, pak Sau in sparring. See what works and what doesn't work. Later incorporate Gum Sau or Jum Sau or gan sau. You won't be able to successfully use the techniques all the time but if you can sometime. Thats great.

The Great thing about WC being and inside fighting style is because most street fights end up being either inside or aggressive. Which in most cases you will always have a bridge. Unlike sparring and competitions where fighters fight smart and use feints, timing and step in and out of range. In actual street fight the guy is usually trying to hurt you and hit you alot. More so than not he will rush in and try and hit you and get you on the ground so he can hit you. Thats where training and conditioning comes in. But if you don't practice using elements of chi sau and WC hand techniques in sparring when it comes to real fight you will not be able to implement it either. When You spar with someone video tape it. Look at it. Judge for yourself how many WC techniques you actually were able to utilize and then compare that to how many WC techniques you know. If you only see two or tree elements of WC that means you may need to implement more into sparring.

The problem is when people spar they are only concerned about winning. When you think I want to win win win. You forget sparring is about learning. Learning how to implement techniques. Next time you spar with a friend instead of purely focusing on winning also focus on using techniques you are weak in or cant make work. Keep it up for a month or two until you get comfortable and learn how to use those techniques. Yes using them may cause you to loose or you may get hit more because you are weak. But I gurantee you practice makes perfect. In Time you will master that technique and have no problem with it in the future. Then move on to another!

[YungChun]

By Facing I susppose you mean using Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma.

No, facing does not refer to a stance... Facing is the dynamic of keeping your upper body square to the opponent in order to use the hands together (hand unity)..

Facing happens regardless of the "stance" which is a poor term IMO, it refers to the horse which is also dynamic and omnipresent--or should be..

[Yoshiyahu]

No, facing does not refer to a stance... Facing is the dynamic of keeping your upper body square to the opponent in order to use the hands together (hand unity)..

Facing happens regardless of the "stance" which is a poor term IMO, it refers to the horse which is also dynamic and omnipresent--or should be..


I completely understand what your saying. I agree you can be facing in forward advancing stance or Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma.

But I think we he says he means square on facing. In other words the feet and body are squarely facing your opponent.

the reason why i say this is from Terrence comment below

"We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises."


through out all the Forms you hold YGKYM even in Chum Kiu you transistion from forward bracing stance to YGKYM. An in most WC Kwoons drills are practice in YGKYM.

[YungChun]

I completely understand what your saying. I agree you can be facing in forward advancing stance or Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma.

But I think we he says he means square on facing. In other words the feet and body are squarely facing your opponent.

the reason why i say this is from Terrence comment below

"We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises."


through out all the Forms you hold YGKYM even in Chum Kiu you transistion from forward bracing stance to YGKYM. An in most WC Kwoons drills are practice in YGKYM.

T refers to the omnipresence of facing.. Facing has nothing to do with the horse (which stance), where the legs are--you could choose NOT to face and use the sames stances..rather we face.. The horse is omnipresent but constantly changing/moving, as we face..

[t_niehoff]

What a f-ing load..

Like everyone would just run the f#ck down to the local MMA gym if only Terence would post a clip of himself sparring... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.!


Don't take Victor seriously -- if he really wanted to train and develop fighting skill, he's already be at a gym. Isn't it funny that Victor and Goju both argued constantly with Dale (who did post videos, etc.), and they both stalk me (although Victor has me in his ignore list! LOL!). You see, it doesn't matter what your "rank" (Dale was a BB) or whether you put up videos or not, or whether you compete or not, guys like Victor and Goju will find some other non-issue to raise for a very simple reason: they can't provide any evidence to support their fantasy views.

What thy don't realize is that everyone who is training at a MMA gym can immediately recognize the others who are doing the same thing. Frost, M1K3, Alan, Dave, Dale, etc. all KNOW -- just from what people say -- who is doing the work and who isn't. The only ones Victor and Goju "fool", if they fool anyone but themselves, are the other fantasy guys. Victor and Goju can't see this because they've never done the training.

And they never will.



I guess it's just one enormous conspiracy... So no, no one should go and train with good MMA fighters because it will make your kung-fu weak and somehow "mixed" with ill informed Western ideas that would no doubt take all the fun out of your kung fu......

Dan Inosanto began training in BJJ at 60 and got his BB at 70..... If that doesn't inspire anyone even without a f-ing video....I don't know what would.

One of my MMA coaches put it best when he told me that if you aren't already doing it, you won't be able to do it. I think that sums it all up.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And it was Dale who recently said in a post that the only two people frequenting this forum who have ever posted vids of themselves sparring/fighting live against a resisting opponent were myself and Alan Orr.

I may have disagreements with Dale, but that doesn't change anything about what's what on the issue of credibility.

And you, Niehoff, have none. And you never will until you post something of yourself. Why single you out? Because no one around here talks the trash you do, and as frequently as you do, about other people's wing chun/ving tsun. You are the champion in that category.

So you need to show that you should be taken seriously. Because so much of what you post about wing chun, not even including all the insults - is garbage.

And until you provide at least one vid proving otherwise - it's all bluster through the use of smoke and mirrors.

[t_niehoff]

By Facing I susppose you mean using Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma.


"Facing" refers to how our upper body is referenced to our opponent. I face him square-on, for example, when both my shoulder/hips are equidistant from him. That is WCK's default facing. We use that facing as it enables us to use both hands simultaneously. And we want to be able to use both our arms simultaneously since we want to control our opponent (and it takes both our arms to do that).



Wing Chun has various stances the three main stances are Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma, Forward Bracing or Advancing stance and hanging horse. But you wouldn't hold a knee up in actual fight. The purpose is to get you comfortable with with raising your knee while being able to balance for that split second you have your leg in the air. Also you don't fight the entire fight in forward bracing stance. that would be static. You may have to turn, back step front step or side step.


WCK doesn't have "stances", it has horses (ma). A horse is using your body in a certain way, to do a certain thing (not necessarily how you stand). For example, bik ma is pressing horse, so you are using your body to press. Biu ma is darting horse, so you are darting forward with your body.

YJKYM is the foundation of all the WCK horses. It is using your body as a spring. That mechanic is present in all the other horses.



It is true that Yee Gee Kin Yeung Ma is practice stance. But you can also use the stance in fight. i wouldnt start out that way unless your so skilled very few people can defeat you. Forward Advancing stance is better for medium and long range fighting. YGKYM is better for close range attacks like throwing elbows where you need to shift the body to get full swing of motion with elbow strikes. But the YGKYM is not effective if your unattached. The best bet is to control your opponent and lead him or pull him into a strike.


All the WCK horses are for inside fighting.



But the problem is when people think of stance they think static. Depending on the pressure of your opponent or your opportunity you may never have a chance to fully use YGKYM or the facing stance. You may never use raising knee to defend or attack with. it depends on your aggressor. But the key is to feel for changes and allow your opponent to lead you to openings.

If you seriously think your going to stand in YGKYM against a karate guy or some boxers your crazy. The Kicks or right hooks will come flying at you. You will need to be in advantageous posistion to fully utilize this technique. But it can be done, you just need to know and feel when you can. If you don't practice using your YGKYM in actual sparring or fighting that is okay your wing chun is just missing an element.


No, the real problem is that people think of "stance" instead of horse (using their body).



Chi Sau and various drills should be eventually incoroprated into sparring so you can learn how to implement them and make them functional in an actual fighting scenario.


Yes.



Until then your WC techniques are just theoretical. Very Few Wing Chun people actually get pass Chain Punch, Front kick and Wing Chun guard. The majority of most WC people who spar is just those three techniques. No wonder they get their hats handed to them. Very few people are teaching students how to implement the techniques of WC outside of drills and chi sau.


No one can teach you to box. You learn to box, and develop boxing skill, by boxing. You just need to get out there and do it, work it out for yourself. No one can teach you how to do it -- as how YOU do it will be an individual thing. You see, this is part of the problem: often people want someone to show them how (spoon feed me, please) rather than do the work. No one can show you how to surf. You can only learn by doing it yourself.

Another part of the problem is that people who can't do it are teaching others to do it like they believe it should be done. Judo chop takedown defense.



The problem is when people spar they are only concerned about winning. When you think I want to win win win. You forget sparring is about learning. Learning how to implement techniques. Next time you spar with a friend instead of purely focusing on winning also focus on using techniques you are weak in or cant make work. Keep it up for a month or two until you get comfortable and learn how to use those techniques. Yes using them may cause you to loose or you may get hit more because you are weak. But I gurantee you practice makes perfect. In Time you will master that technique and have no problem with it in the future. Then move on to another!

Here is a good way to start. Stop doing your forms, chi sao, etc. -- you already know them, right? -- and just spar as your training. Begin with contact/inside sparring. Get some nonWCK people (your best option) or just have one side NOT do WCK and just use whatever they can. Don't spar WCK vs. WCK. Put on a cup, gloves, mouthpiece, and open-face headgear (no facemasks). Go at least at 80% full out. Start in contact and then fight trying to control your opponent while you are striking them. Analyze your sparring, ask yourself what worked, why did it work, what didn't work, why didn't it work, how can you increase your control, etc. And just keep sparring. Try to use only WCK movement. Put in a few hundred hours of this and you will develop.

[t_niehoff]

And it was Dale who recently said in a post that the only two people frequenting this forum who have ever posted vids of themselves sparring/fighting live against a resisting opponent were myself and Alan Orr.

I may have disagreements with Dale, but that doesn't change anything about what's what on the issue of credibility.

And you, Niehoff, have none. And you never will until you post something of yourself. Why single you out? Because no one around here talks the trash you do, and as frequently as you do, about other people's wing chun/ving tsun. You are the champion in that category.

So you need to show that you should be taken seriously. Because so much of what you post about wing chun, not even including all the insults - is garbage.

And until you provide at least one vid proving otherwise - it's all bluster through the use of smoke and mirrors.

Victor, I don't care to PROVE myself to you or anyone. That's what you don't get. That's what guys with small-pen1ses want to do -- prove themselves to others. I don't feel the need to do that.

And, if I posted a video, I'd be doing exactly what you and others who I find objectionable are doing: trying to use myself as an example.

My views don't rest on my skill or authority. I don't want to be an example. As I have said, I'm not that good. I know that from training/sparring with people who are good. So I'm not telling anyone to do what I say BECAUSE I say so. I tell them to go listen to what good proven fighters and fight trainers say, and to do what they do. IOWs, I tell them to do the WORK themselves and not rely on others INCLUDING ME. This is why I keep saying to go out and train with good people. And especially to not listen to guys like you who avoid doing the WORK.

You post videos because you want people to take you seriously (not recognizing that the crap you post only makes the fighters not take you seriously). I don't want people to take what I say as true -- I WANT THEM TO GET OUT AND HAVE THE EXPERIENCE THEMSELVES. And to draw their own conclusions after having that EXPERIENCE.

For me, THAT -- getting the experience yourself -- is the only thing that matters.

Why is it that you won't go train at a MMA or BJJ school? Why? We both know why you don't want that experience.

I talk trash because much of what is tossed around here IS trash. Trash. Cheung doing a judo chop to stop the takedown. Trash. Catching punches out of the air. Trash. Your "hook" defense. Trash. If you went and trained with good fighters you'd know that. Any of the guys who train MMA will tell you the same thing.

As I said, I will leave the posting of videos to guys like you.

[LoneTiger108]

"Facing" refers to how our upper body is referenced to our opponent. I face him square-on, for example, when both my shoulder/hips are equidistant from him. That is WCK's default facing. We use that facing as it enables us to use both hands simultaneously. And we want to be able to use both our arms simultaneously since we want to control our opponent (and it takes both our arms to do that).

So according to this, you're 'facing' chiuyin is ginsan? I understand that too as our 'default' setting if you like, but you can still use both hands in pin (slant) and juk (side) body. Chiuyin juksan is actually drilled in the first point of the pole and is still considered 'facing' although it's attacking from your side.

Reading your statement I would expect two Wing Chun guys to look like robots, with no freedom in their waist at all. Okay for beginners, but not for the more seasoned practitioner imho.

[t_niehoff]

So according to this, you're 'facing' chiuyin is ginsan? I understand that too as our 'default' setting if you like, but you can still use both hands in pin (slant) and juk (side) body. Chiuyin juksan is actually drilled in the first point of the pole and is still considered 'facing' although it's attacking from your side.

Reading your statement I would expect two Wing Chun guys to look like robots, with no freedom in their waist at all. Okay for beginners, but not for the more seasoned practitioner imho.

I think you are confusing some things.

I always want to face my opponent squarely. This is my optimal facing as it gives me full use of both my hands to control and strike my opponent.

Side body generally refers to flanking, to getting to the opponent's side (or back) -- so that he can't use both his hands and I am fighting only half of his body (using both my arms since I face him squarely).

Sometimes, however, things go wrong, my opponent gets to my flank. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes I can turn and face and at other times I need to be able to act with side facing (to get the opportunity and time to face squarely).

[LoneTiger108]

I think you are confusing some things.

Not at all T. I am refering to MY body here, how I set MYSELF up and how to best approach this subject of 'facing'.


I always want to face my opponent squarely. This is my optimal facing as it gives me full use of both my hands to control and strike my opponent.

Yes, having use of both hands in THIS way is fine but it does have a major weakness. Your reach will be shorter than a person in juksan (side body) or pinsan (slant body) and as I said, you don't need to be square on (shoulder to shoulder) to use both hands.

Basically, speaking in your terms, a boxers jab will just pick you off all the time as his reach will always be longer than yours.


Side body generally refers to flanking, to getting to the opponent's side (or back) -- so that he can't use both his hands and I am fighting only half of his body (using both my arms since I face him squarely).

No T, that's how YOU have been taught. Flanking, to me, is called tsoiyin and is the main reason we practise the wooden man. I was taught that the angling of your OWN body must be studied first. We cover all this in simple YJKYM interactions. Tell me, if you flank to the opponents side I presume that you then turn to face before you enter? Why?


Sometimes, however, things go wrong, my opponent gets to my flank. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes I can turn and face and at other times I need to be able to act with side facing (to get the opportunity and time to face squarely).

So what do you mean by 'act with side facing'? Because that sounds like what I'm talking about, but I don't get to that angle by accident or are forced there by my opponent (although that CAN happen as you said!) and I wouldn't consider it a 'stop gap' until I can get square-on (although I do understand that this is a preferance of many)

For me, as a short and light fella, I have to utilize everything and sometimes aviod 'going toe to toe' or 'shoulder to shoulder' altogether, and my Wing Chun training allows this. In fact, it supports it 100% and would be the prefered method for a woman too. Not that that means anything here, which is a shame...

[mjw]

If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?


Face your opponent to stay square and in the pocket, you can shift to use rotational power as needed.....

[YungChun]

Not at all T. I am refering to MY body here, how I set MYSELF up and how to best approach this subject of 'facing'.



Yes, having use of both hands in THIS way is fine but it does have a major weakness. Your reach will be shorter than a person in juksan (side body) or pinsan (slant body) and as I said, you don't need to be square on (shoulder to shoulder) to use both hands.

Basically, speaking in your terms, a boxers jab will just pick you off all the time as his reach will always be longer than yours.



No T, that's how YOU have been taught. Flanking, to me, is called tsoiyin and is the main reason we practise the wooden man. I was taught that the angling of your OWN body must be studied first. We cover all this in simple YJKYM interactions. Tell me, if you flank to the opponents side I presume that you then turn to face before you enter? Why?



So what do you mean by 'act with side facing'? Because that sounds like what I'm talking about, but I don't get to that angle by accident or are forced there by my opponent (although that CAN happen as you said!) and I wouldn't consider it a 'stop gap' until I can get square-on (although I do understand that this is a preferance of many)

For me, as a short and light fella, I have to utilize everything and sometimes aviod 'going toe to toe' or 'shoulder to shoulder' altogether, and my Wing Chun training allows this. In fact, it supports it 100% and would be the prefered method for a woman too. Not that that means anything here, which is a shame...

It's right in the Kuit,,, We "face the ball" anyone who has done the basic training that *I* know will tell you the great import of precise facing.. Even being off a little can be a problem or disadvantage.. Most of what you wrote makes it sound like you are fighting from way outside..

Facing is a super basic fundamental in the VT I know with few exceptions.

[Yoshiyahu]

Thanks for your post Niehoff very enlighten. The only place where we differ is terminology! but other than that its all good!


"Facing" refers to how our upper body is referenced to our opponent. I face him square-on, for example, when both my shoulder/hips are equidistant from him. That is WCK's default facing. We use that facing as it enables us to use both hands simultaneously. And we want to be able to use both our arms simultaneously since we want to control our opponent (and it takes both our arms to do that).



WCK doesn't have "stances", it has horses (ma). A horse is using your body in a certain way, to do a certain thing (not necessarily how you stand). For example, bik ma is pressing horse, so you are using your body to press. Biu ma is darting horse, so you are darting forward with your body.

YJKYM is the foundation of all the WCK horses. It is using your body as a spring. That mechanic is present in all the other horses.



All the WCK horses are for inside fighting.



No, the real problem is that people think of "stance" instead of horse (using their body).



Yes.



No one can teach you to box. You learn to box, and develop boxing skill, by boxing. You just need to get out there and do it, work it out for yourself. No one can teach you how to do it -- as how YOU do it will be an individual thing. You see, this is part of the problem: often people want someone to show them how (spoon feed me, please) rather than do the work. No one can show you how to surf. You can only learn by doing it yourself.

Another part of the problem is that people who can't do it are teaching others to do it like they believe it should be done. Judo chop takedown defense.



Here is a good way to start. Stop doing your forms, chi sao, etc. -- you already know them, right? -- and just spar as your training. Begin with contact/inside sparring. Get some nonWCK people (your best option) or just have one side NOT do WCK and just use whatever they can. Don't spar WCK vs. WCK. Put on a cup, gloves, mouthpiece, and open-face headgear (no facemasks). Go at least at 80% full out. Start in contact and then fight trying to control your opponent while you are striking them. Analyze your sparring, ask yourself what worked, why did it work, what didn't work, why didn't it work, how can you increase your control, etc. And just keep sparring. Try to use only WCK movement. Put in a few hundred hours of this and you will develop.

[LoneTiger108]

Facing is a super basic fundamental in the VT I know with few exceptions.

Same here, except that within our family we use a lot of angled slant and side body attacks, just as most Ip Man players *I* know actually. AND we still call that 'facing', it's just not square-on that's all.

[t_niehoff]

Not at all T. I am refering to MY body here, how I set MYSELF up and how to best approach this subject of 'facing'.


Ah, OK. But I am referring to WCK's method.



Yes, having use of both hands in THIS way is fine but it does have a major weakness. Your reach will be shorter than a person in juksan (side body) or pinsan (slant body) and as I said, you don't need to be square on (shoulder to shoulder) to use both hands.


What are you talking about? When you are on the inside, reach isn't an issue. You should always be "in range". If you need to turn to reach your opponent, you can't have control. And all you do is give your opponent the ability to take your flank (you actually give it to him).



Basically, speaking in your terms, a boxers jab will just pick you off all the time as his reach will always be longer than yours.


You are WAY confused. Either I am outside his range (so he can't hit me) or I am on the inside (or entering to take the inside). WCK doesn't fight on the outside, it is an INSIDE fighting method. So I am not going to stand on the outside and trade punches with an opponent.



No T, that's how YOU have been taught.


This has nothing to do with how I was taught. It has to do with how I fight with my WCK.



Flanking, to me, is called tsoiyin


In the WCK method, pien san (side body) refers to flanking.



and is the main reason we practise the wooden man.


No. Flanking is taught in the CK. The wooden man develops power. Just like the kuit says.



I was taught that the angling of your OWN body must be studied first. We cover all this in simple YJKYM interactions. Tell me, if you flank to the opponents side I presume that you then turn to face before you enter? Why?


You can't take the flank without first controlling the center. If you give the opponent your side, you are giving him the fight.



So what do you mean by 'act with side facing'? Because that sounds like what I'm talking about, but I don't get to that angle by accident or are forced there by my opponent (although that CAN happen as you said!) and I wouldn't consider it a 'stop gap' until I can get square-on (although I do understand that this is a preferance of many)


If the opponent gets my side/flank, sometimes I do not have the time/opportunity to turn and face squarely, so I need to act (do something) while still facing with my side. This is a disadvantage and risky, but sometimes that's all you have.

Facing with your side is never a good thing.



For me, as a short and light fella, I have to utilize everything and sometimes aviod 'going toe to toe' or 'shoulder to shoulder' altogether, and my Wing Chun training allows this. In fact, it supports it 100% and would be the prefered method for a woman too. Not that that means anything here, which is a shame...

Nonsense. WCK's method is to control while striking the opponent. Giving the opponent your side isn't the way to do that.

PS -

Chi sao shows you WCK's "operating range". You can practice controlling while striking in chi sao because you are in the range to do that.

[t_niehoff]

Face your opponent to stay square and in the pocket, you can shift to use rotational power as needed.....

You shift/turn to break the opponent's structure.

[YungChun]

Same here, except that within our family we use a lot of angled slant and side body attacks, just as most Ip Man players *I* know actually. AND we still call that 'facing', it's just not square-on that's all.

Definitely not the same then... Facing--the super basic fundamental--in the Kuit--actually means facing, not "blading" and saying facing, facing as accurately as possible on the inside... Not doing so based on it's role inside IMO is a tactical error..

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Victor, I don't care to PROVE myself to you or anyone." (Niehoff)
.......................

***IT'S NOT ABOUT "caring" to prove, it's about HAVING TO PROVE that you should be taken seriously.

Just look at JP at AZ's signature, or the post recently made by kgledhill - all of which quotes you verbatim on the subject of chi sao....

and you will see complete reversals of your position from post-to-post.

And then there's the "elbow strikes are the primary wing chun weapon" remark. Please...

And the tan sao will break you out of the MT plum (neck tie) remark.(Dale/Knifefighter had a blast with that one also).

How could someone who claims to have spent 20+ years in wing chun, and who claims to train regularly for years now - including sparring every class he attends - with mma guys...SAY SUCH THINGS???

JP of AZ had it right in a recent post: reading your posts carefully shows that you've been "in the room" with mma guys - but not that you regularly work out and spar with them. Far from it.

[t_niehoff]

"Victor, I don't care to PROVE myself to you or anyone." (Niehoff)
.......................

***IT'S NOT ABOUT "caring" to prove, it's about HAVING TO PROVE that you should be taken seriously.


There you go -- you just don't get it. You are THAT obtuse.

You don't think I have skill at WCK? My sifu has told you. I've trained with people on this forum. But you don't have to take my word for what I say. Go see for yourself.

You don't think I train BJJ or MMA? WTF do I care? All anyone needs to do is go train it themselves and they will see what I am saying is true. If they -- like you -- won't, then what does it matter if what I say is true or not?



Just look at JP at AZ's signature, or the post recently made by kgledhill - all of which quotes you verbatim on the subject of chi sao....

and you will see complete reversals of your position from post-to-post.


And that only shows that all three of you just don't get what I was saying and that it was all consistent. I even explained it for you reading-comprehension-impaired folks. AM I to blame that you are too dense?



And then there's the "elbow strikes are the primary wing chun weapon" remark. Please...


It is the primary finishing weapon. WCK is alleged to have been a women's art, right? That's the story. So, you think women are going to be punching out men with their fists? Or, do you think they might use their most powerful and durable weapon?

On the inside, the elbow is our best weapon.



And the tan sao will break you out of the MT plum (neck tie) remark.(Dale/Knifefighter had a blast with that one also).


You seem to think tan sao is a shape as opposed to an action. To tan means to spread out.



How could someone who claims to have spent 20+ years in wing chun, and who claims to train regularly for years now - including sparring every class he attends with mma guys - SAY SUCH THINGS???


Yup. That's why Alan said I was one of the few on here who made any sense. And that's why all the guys who train MMA on this forum tend to agree with me (and not you).



JP of AZ had it right in a recent post: reading your posts carefully shows that you've been "in the room" with mma guys - but not that you regularly work out and spar with them. far from it.

If you or Jonathan actually went and trained at a MMA gym, you'd see that isn't how it works. But, I don't think you will ever see that.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Just one read of your chi sao posts should be enough for anyone to get the real picture about
just how much you actually know about chi sao.

And now you say that elbow strikes are the primary "FINISHING" weapon? Oh really?! Well gee, Terry...that's NOT what you said the first time around.

No, the first time around they were the primary wing chun STRIKING weapon.

Does someone need to start collecting various Niehoff quotes on the subject of elbows too? So we can compare them one-after-the-other the way it was done with your constantly changing chi sao views?

And as for Robert and Alan backing up your claims about your training. Hey listen, one guy lives in England and the other in California. What do they really know about what you do in St. Louis?

Because your posts about your present (as in recent years) indicate that you train, competitively spar, and competitively roll regulary (as in every class). At least that's what you say you do.

Do we need to go back and check your posts about what years you spent your alleged 100 hours training with Robert were, exactly?

And when you got together with Alan?

Did they actually witness your alleged attendance in mma classes? BJJ classes? Sessions you say you've had with guys trained in boxing and Muay Thai?

But again, how could anyone who trains the way you say you do talk about a tan vs. a MT plum? What do these mma guys you train with regularly have to say about that move? Hummm?

And then there's the "wing chun is attached fighting" business. Well, pal..."attached" means "attached"...as in....clinch, or close to it.

And that is NOT wing chun. That's just Niehoff imagery and bluster.

You have no idea how to use pak, lop, garn, jut, tan, bil, gum, chuen, jut, bong, etc. So the forum gets to read about wing chun "attachment" instead.

Yeah, right.

Again: without a vid as evidence - you're just not credible.

[LoneTiger108]

Ah, OK. But I am referring to WCK's method.

No, you are referring to 'what you believe' to be the method of WCK, based on a few loose terms and kuit you have seen.


What are you talking about? When you are on the inside, reach isn't an issue. You should always be "in range". If you need to turn to reach your opponent, you can't have control. And all you do is give your opponent the ability to take your flank (you actually give it to him).

How do you intend to get on the inside then T? When chisau/looksau is actually designed to PROTECT this 'inside' you mention?


You are WAY confused. Either I am outside his range (so he can't hit me) or I am on the inside (or entering to take the inside). WCK doesn't fight on the outside, it is an INSIDE fighting method. So I am not going to stand on the outside and trade punches with an opponent.

Again, what a generalization! I honestly don't know how you can believe half the cr4p you write? Now I'm NOT saying we don't do INSIDE, but that's only half the method, as with the inside comes the outside T. You need to learn that fact I think.


In the WCK method, pien san (side body) refers to flanking.

Oh so general again! In YOUR WCK method would be more accurate. Give me an example that says pien san is for flanking. FYI Pin (pien) san is NOT side body. I've explained this before. There is central, slanted and side bodies. Side is Juksan.

Now I'm just repeating myself and getting bored.


No. Flanking is taught in the CK. The wooden man develops power. Just like the kuit says.

You are now sounding a bit of a beginner T. Or you sure it's not YOU who is confused. Show me ONE set within the wooden man that does not move tsoiyin, or around the opponents side/flank? Every set goes there T. Every one.

AND yes! Chum Kiu teaches this too, in it's own defensive kind of way.


You can't take the flank without first controlling the center. If you give the opponent your side, you are giving him the fight.

And it could also be said viceversa dude! WAKE UP! You can't take the cebtre without controlling the flank!

What are you talking about anywayz?? Wing Chun or wrestling??!!


Facing with your side is never a good thing.

That may feel like that to you, because you've never drilled that way. Not so for me, but I may just be very influenced by the weaponry of Wing Chun which sinks into the empty hand and body very well indeed. For me of course.


Chi sao shows you WCK's "operating range". You can practice controlling while striking in chi sao because you are in the range to do that.

No. Chisau shows you how we practise 'together' to exchange ideas. If you're truly transfixed on the idea that chiuyin ginsan is WCK ONLY operating range, then I ask 'why do we have danchisau?' Do you practise Danchisau square-on too?

I ask because your posts are getting more concerning. It seems that you throw your negativeness at people that are genuine and who are trying to understand why you're like this. I personally feel that you just have something against people that have different experiences that yours in Wing Chun.

And obviusly, non-fighters like me just can't know what they're talking about as I learnt from a different perspective!

[t_niehoff]

Just one read of your chi sao posts should be enough for anyone to get the real picture about
just how much you actually know about chi sao.


Chi sao is an exercise to learn/practice WCK's contact skills to control the opponent while striking. Simple enough.



And now you say that elbow strikes are the primary "FINISHING" weapon? Oh really?! Well gee, Terry...that's NOT what you said the first time around.


Yes, Vicky. Now, do you see how silly it is to do the name-thingy?

Yes, finishing weapon. If you go back and look at the CONTEXT of my statement, that is what was being talked about. At longer range, for example when entering, you punch (you aren't close enough to use an elbow strike). But once you are on the inside -- which is where we want to be -- the choice of weapon changes, as does its purpose (we don't finish from the outside).

The SNT teaches you the tools for getting in close, the CK the tools for breaking his structure (to control him) after you have gotten close, and the BJ the weapons (elbows and forearms) for finishing him (among other things).



No, the first time around they were the primary wing chun STRIKING weapon.


Context, dear boy. Context.

If you don't understand something, it is a good thing to ask for clarification.



Does someone need to start collecting various Niehoff quotes on the subject of elbows too? So we can compare them one-after-the-other the way it was done with your constantly changing chi sao views?


You see, that's the problem. If you "collect" various things I say about elbows or chi sao and string them together out of context, nothing will make any sense. But that is true of anyone on any topic. He said it was raining, he said it was dry, he said it was windy, he said it calm, etc. He can't make up his mind about the weather! Context.



And as for Robert and Alan backing up your claims about your training. Hey listen, one guy lives in England and the other in California. What do they really know about what you do in St. Louis?


What are you complaining about? That people can't back up "my claims" of how I train? What does it matter?

This is what you don't "get".

Whether I train or not, or how I train, doesn't matter -- except to me. What do you care?

You are disingenuous. If I posted a video of myself sparring, would that suddenly change all your views? Of course not. All you would say is "OK, he spars, but that doesn't mean . . . " Dale is a BB in BJJ and you have never spent any serious time training grappling, and certainly not with anyone skilled, but you still didn't accept his views. You see, Victor, it didn't matter that Dale trained, or that Dale had videos, or that Dale competed, none of that made any difference to you. And if I put up videos, competed, etc. it wouldn't make any difference. It doesn't make any difference that Alan has videos, that he has competed, etc. and that he says what I say is correct, it still doesn't make any difference.

And that is because you don't really train. If you trained, you'd see for yourself that what I am saying is true. But until you do, nothing -- NOTHING-- will make any difference to you. Nothing I say or do, nothing Dale says or does, nothing Alan says or does, nothing any fighters says or does. You have your own fantasy views.



Because your posts about your present (as in recent years) indicate that you train, competitively spar, and competitively roll regulary (as in every class). At least that's what you say you do.


And the fact that you don't -- that what I say you take as somehow exceptional and beyond belief --tells me that you aren't training. If you go to any BJJ school, you will roll "competitively" in every class. If you to go any MMA gym,you will spar in every class. If you go to a boxing gym, you will spar every time you train. All fighters do that. That is how they train. All sport fighting gyms do that.

I don't go to BJJ class to not roll. I don't go to MMA class to not spar. Just like I don't go to the golf course to not play golf!



But again, how could anyone who trains the way you say you do talk about a tan vs. a MT plum? What do these mma guys you train with regularly have to say about that move? Hummm?


What is the standard "move" they teach to deal with the plum? To swim your arm in to take back inside control, right? That ACTION,moving your arm to the inside and spreading his arm outward to take control of the center - whether to strike or to grab his head - is called in WCK "tan".



And then there's the "wing chun is attached fighting" business. Well, pal..."attached" means "attached"...as in....clinch, or close to it.

And that is NOT wing chun. That's just Niehoff imagery and bluster.


WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him. THAT is what all the older, legit lineages of WCK teach. I'm sorry if Cheung didn't learn it and didn't teach it. To do that, to control an opponent, you need to be close and in continual contact. That doesn't mean that you have to be holding firmly onto him. In WCK, the attachment is fluid, changing. And the attachment is to his center.

Chi sao teaches you this.



You have no idea how to use pak, lop, garn, jut, tan, bil, gum, chuen, jut, bong, etc. So the forum gets to read about wing chun "attachment" instead.


They are bridge hands. You learn to use them by doing the WCK drills, like chi sao, lop sao, etc. They are all "attached"/contact drills. And they all take place at WCK's "operating" range. They are not blocks,they are much more. The blocking is just one aspect of the control. If you use them to block but not control, you are not getting full use of the tool. And, you aren't training WCK's method.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?

You are a flat out novice... There is nothing more to say. Without looking through the thread, I would bet that most of the responses are from intermediates and novices who don't really know with a few experts chiming in to tell you that you are an idiot.

[t_niehoff]

No, you are referring to 'what you believe' to be the method of WCK, based on a few loose terms and kuit you have seen.


No, the method of WCK is quite consistent fro YKS/SN to YM to Gu Lao to Pan Nam to etc. And that is to control the opponent while striking him. It is described in various ways, but it is the same approach.

And it isn't based on " a few loose terms and kuit". In fact, I have several comprehensive sets of kuit, several comprehensive sets of keywords, faat mun, etc. and they all share a commonality.



How do you intend to get on the inside then T? When chisau/looksau is actually designed to PROTECT this 'inside' you mention?


You can't control the opponent on the outside to any significant degree. Chi sao is a drill to learn how to control the opponent while striking him. Chi sao takes place on the inside, in WCK's operating range. By controlling the opponent, you are protecting yourself.



Again, what a generalization! I honestly don't know how you can believe half the cr4p you write? Now I'm NOT saying we don't do INSIDE, but that's only half the method, as with the inside comes the outside T. You need to learn that fact I think.


WCK doesn't fight from the outside -- its outside game to to "enter", not stay there. WCK doesn't have the tools necessary to fight on the outside (like kickboxing does, for example).



Oh so general again! In YOUR WCK method would be more accurate. Give me an example that says pien san is for flanking. FYI Pin (pien) san is NOT side body. I've explained this before. There is central, slanted and side bodies. Side is Juksan.


Pien san (side body) isn't FOR flanking, it IS the relationship of facing with your shoulder (or your opponent facing with his shoulder). Juk san (slanting body) is when you perform the action of "slanting" it involves having turned so that you then have a pien san relationship. In Gu Lao, we have juk da and juk kiu points (slanted strike and slanted bridge) as well as pien san chiue, pien san cheung, etc.



You are now sounding a bit of a beginner T. Or you sure it's not YOU who is confused. Show me ONE set within the wooden man that does not move tsoiyin, or around the opponents side/flank? Every set goes there T. Every one.


First of all, we practice "moving around" the dummy (because it is fixed and can't move), but in practice we typically turn/move the opponent. It is too slow to try to step around the opponent like we do the dummy -- it doesn't work. We make our opponent try to move around us.

But, yes, there is flanking in the dummy. That flanking we learn in the CK and then practice on the dummy.



AND yes! Chum Kiu teaches this too, in it's own defensive kind of way.


In WCK, we learn the CK before we learn the dummy set. And, the CK isn't defensive. The CK is the heart of WCK, it is about using our bridges to break the opponent's structure.



And it could also be said viceversa dude! WAKE UP! You can't take the cebtre without controlling the flank!


No. To control the flank, I need to be on the opponent's flank (he is facing me with his shoulder). He won't just let me move there -- he will track my motion, always facing me. To get the flank, I need to first take the center and control it. If I don't, I will never get to his flank (unless he is a scrub and gives it to me).



What are you talking about anywayz?? Wing Chun or wrestling??!!


WCK.



That may feel like that to you, because you've never drilled that way. Not so for me, but I may just be very influenced by the weaponry of Wing Chun which sinks into the empty hand and body very well indeed. For me of course.


I am talking about empty hand fighting. The weapons and the empty hands are totally different things, apples and oranges. Fencing with a foil isn't boxing.



No. Chisau shows you how we practise 'together' to exchange ideas. If you're truly transfixed on the idea that chiuyin ginsan is WCK ONLY operating range, then I ask 'why do we have danchisau?' Do you practise Danchisau square-on too?


No. We "exchange ideas" in conversation. Chi sao is for learning/practicing WCK. Of course, we "explore changes while sticking with a partner" as the kuit tells us. But, what guides our practice -- what we are trying to do with our "changes"-- is control the opponent while striking him.

Dan chi sao is a basic, beginner drill (created by Yip Man) to teach some simple changes that you then put into chi sao (luk sao). Dan chi sao is taught/practiced with square-on facing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?



You are a flat out novice... There is nothing more to say. Without looking through the thread, I would bet that most of the responses are from intermediates and novices who don't really know with a few experts chiming in to tell you that you are an idiot.

***YOU ARE CORRECT. He is an idiot. The rotation, when using a squared up stance, comes from a turning of the hips, but to a lessor degree than when in a more side body stance. And of course added power also comes from forward momentum and power taken from the ground, assuming that your body structure and alignment is also tight and focused. This is pretty basic stuff.

[t_niehoff]

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
If you read "The Operating System" thread, you may recall that square-on facing is one of the four elements in that operating system.

We all know the basic square-on facing, right? We do it in every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice that square-on facing?

And, if we use square-on facing, how can we use rotational power?


***YOU ARE CORRECT. He is an idiot. The rotation, when using a squared up stance, comes from a turning of the hips, but to a lessor degree than when in a more side body stance. And of course added power also comes from forward momentum and power taken from the ground, assuming that your body structure and alignment is also tight and focused. This is pretty basic stuff.

What you don't grasp is that WCK's power is not based on rotation. If you watched Alan's DVDs he covered this. I guess he's an idiot too? ;)

Sure, WCK uses rotation but not as our main source of power. We rotate to break the opponent's structure. But you have no idea what I mean by that since for you WCK is a form of kickboxing.

[HumbleWCGuy]

What you don't grasp is that WCK's power is not based on rotation. If you watched Alan's DVDs he covered this. I guess he's an idiot too? ;)

Sure, WCK uses rotation but not as our main source of power. We rotate to break the opponent's structure. But you have no idea what I mean by that since for you WCK is a form of kickboxing.
Your conception of WC is chasing someone around with your fook sao and throwing boxing punches with the other hand.

[t_niehoff]

Your conception of WC is chasing someone around with your fook sao and throwing boxing punches with the other hand.

So says the anonymous troll who hasn't even learned WCK. Tell us who your sifu was. Tell us your name.

Yup. Troll.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What you don't grasp is that WCK's power is not based on rotation. If you watched Alan's DVDs he covered this. I guess he's an idiot too? ;)

Sure, WCK uses rotation but not as our main source of power. We rotate to break the opponent's structure. But you have no idea what I mean by that since for you WCK is a form of kickboxing.

***AND YOU obviously know nothing about the inner workings of what I do. In addition, your nuthugging is showing once again, amateur. Alan's way is BY NO MEANS the only way to make wing chun fight efficient.

[LoneTiger108]

You can't control the opponent on the outside to any significant degree.

No. YOU can't T because you have yet to learn this way of manipulation imho.


WCK doesn't fight from the outside -- its outside game to to "enter", not stay there. WCK doesn't have the tools necessary to fight on the outside (like kickboxing does, for example).

Again, YOUR WCK doesn't dude. We have enough tools to fight both inside and out, even moreso than kickboxing in fact.


Pien san (side body) isn't FOR flanking, it IS the relationship of facing with your shoulder (or your opponent facing with his shoulder).

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.


Juk san (slanting body) is when you perform the action of "slanting" it involves having turned so that you then have a pien san relationship. In Gu Lao, we have juk da and juk kiu points (slanted strike and slanted bridge) as well as pien san chiue, pien san cheung, etc.

Well, I tried! Now you're telling me Pin is side and juk is slanting. My translations are different to yours as I believe you're too influenced by the whole 'Kulo' village people. Pin san is NOT something specific to that area. It's a concept within the YJKYM that needs practise or you will never understand why Wing Chun works well backed into a corner or up against a wall!


I am talking about empty hand fighting. The weapons and the empty hands are totally different things, apples and oranges. Fencing with a foil isn't boxing.

Not so, and I will be forever disagreeing with blanket statements like that. I've been involved with weaponry for a very long time, so give me some credit dude. If you do not understand what I'm saying it's because you have not had enough weaponry experience. Ofcourse there will be slight differences, but there are many more similarities.


Dan chi sao is a basic, beginner drill (created by Yip Man) to teach some simple changes that you then put into chi sao (luk sao). Dan chi sao is taught/practiced with square-on facing.

Really? Who told you that?

Single Chisau is paired with SLT as double Chisau is paired with CK. Now unless Ip Man invented the forms and their purpose, I think you're just repeating what 'Sifu sez' AGAIN!

[t_niehoff]

***AND YOU obviously know nothing about the inner workings of what I do.


I will grant you that -- I don't what it is you are doing.

But I do know WCK's method, and what you are talking about isn't it.



In addition, your nuthugging is showing once again, amateur. Alan's way is BY NO MEANS the only way to make wing chun fight efficient.

Not nuthugging, but you did mention before that you had watched his DVDs. And if you have, then you will have seen how WCK's structureis the source of power, and that the mechanic for generating power -- the YJKYM -- does not use hip/should rotation. He covered that.

The WCK forms and drills teach you WCK. The basis of power in WCK is the YJKYM.

[Wayfaring]

the mechanic for generating power -- the YJKYM -- does not use hip/should rotation. He covered that.


I think if I recall correctly on this, although there always is going to be some minimal rotation in those joints for any method of power generation, the primary method there is a bottom to top linking, with the 3 dan tien's firing in succession from lowest to highest. Described as driving a nail. Is that right?

[t_niehoff]

No. YOU can't T because you have yet to learn this way of manipulation imho.


There is no WAY to do it because you need leverage, and that leverage comes from being close.



Again, YOUR WCK doesn't dude. We have enough tools to fight both inside and out, even moreso than kickboxing in fact.


No it doesn't.



Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

Well, I tried! Now you're telling me Pin is side and juk is slanting. My translations are different to yours as I believe you're too influenced by the whole 'Kulo' village people. Pin san is NOT something specific to that area. It's a concept within the YJKYM that needs practise or you will never understand why Wing Chun works well backed into a corner or up against a wall!


The terms/words mean what they mean -- you can't just redefine them to fit what you want them to mean.

Concepts are nonsense. You don't practice "concepts" -- concepts are ideas. You practice physical DOING things.

The YJKYM is a horse, a way of using the body.



Not so, and I will be forever disagreeing with blanket statements like that. I've been involved with weaponry for a very long time, so give me some credit dude. If you do not understand what I'm saying it's because you have not had enough weaponry experience. Ofcourse there will be slight differences, but there are many more similarities.


No, you've been playing around doing forms, etc. with weapons. Dale, a Dogbrother who has fought full-contact with weapons, told you that empty hand and weapons are two different animals. You can be the best fencer in the world and not be able to fight empty hand. You can have great empty hand, and not be able to fence worth a ****.



Really? Who told you that?

Single Chisau is paired with SLT as double Chisau is paired with CK. Now unless Ip Man invented the forms and their purpose, I think you're just repeating what 'Sifu sez' AGAIN!

Well, if you look at all the lineages of WCK, you will see that no one has dan chi sao in their curriculum before YM (its not a part of Gu Lao or YKS or Pan Nam or etc.). It is fairly well-known that Yip created it. It's one of the Yip Man "signatures".

And chi sao -- in any variety -- isn't "paired" with the forms.