Hook [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

BPWT

04-18-2013, 12:36 PM

YKW is correct - tan vs. haymaker/hook won't work most of the time if the puncher has any idea what he's doing.

IMO, what's shown in the clip is lucky timeframe fighting and will either simply not stop the 'haymaker' (agreed - not even close to a hook) and he'll get hit by it when it crashes thru his no fwd energy check/'block', or he'll get eaten up by the follow up cross from the other hand since he just leaned into that side.

Unfortunately, this is the problem with demos like this. The attacker isn't really trying to take the defender's head off, nor is he using any type of follow up attack that the defender has to worry about. Which usually leads to people believeing that this type of stuff actually works against agressive, high energy attacks - which most of the time it won't (at least, not as shown here).

For sure, it is a demo and there are inherent problems with this, by its very nature (which could be said for just about all demos).

For what it's worth, I've used this when some idiot actually threw a punch like this at me - though he was more square on, so I'd argue he had more option to follow up with a second strike. In my case, I punched into the side of his neck. He wobbled to his side and then two guys jumped in to stop things escalating.

I have no idea of how skilled he was/wasn't - so probably not a pro fighter :D

But it worked for me - which is the point, after all. ;)

BPWT

04-18-2013, 12:43 PM

Oh, and the whole thing was my fault. Talking to a friend as we walked to the bar, bumped into this guy and he dropped his drink down his jeans.

And no, I didn't buy him another as I didn't hang around. Went to another bar where I was more careful to watch where I was going :)

wtxs

04-18-2013, 12:57 PM

In the clip I posted his left hand is not blocking, simply 'checking'. If he'd stood still, then he'd have to block - literally use his left hand to stop the blow... But that would not be very 'Wing Tsunny'. :)

His step in, weight shift and strike is the counter - his left hand motion is a way of using fook sau, so controlling. :)

... freeze and slowly advance the frames, shows his fingers wrapped around the forearm, looks more like an lop sao to me.

BPWT

04-18-2013, 01:13 PM

Vajramusti

04-18-2013, 01:57 PM

Could be, I guess... on my phone I can't slow it down, and at just 4 seconds... :)

But it doesn't really matter, I suppose - the step and punch are really the key elements.

Your fook/lap doesn't block/stop the attacker's punch, your forward movement + punch does the work.
--------------------------------------------------- Another one of those endless discussions.
Some opinions.
1. It's not a hook-it's a telegraphed swing.
2. Good wing chun is not about a specified bock against a specified attack.
3 Timing, stance, turning and stepping and the individual's decisiveness matter.
4. there are huge differences on those items in wing chun development.

BPWT

04-18-2013, 02:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------- Another one of those endless discussions.
Some opinions.

2. Good wing chun is not about a specified bock against a specified attack.

Indeed. Though sometimes seeing the 'technique' is the starting point for talking about something. Alternatively we could see the clip via the ideas inside it. E.g. Attacking the weak side, moving into 'empty' space, borrowing force, attacking/maintaining center, etc.

YouKnowWho

04-18-2013, 05:18 PM

Your fook/lap doesn't block/stop the attacker's punch, your forward movement + punch does the work.

I strongly suggest you to try this on your opponent as the following:

- Your opponent steps in and punches at your face.
- You spin your body to let your body to pull your arm with a haymaker (make sure that haymaker is going 45 degree downward).

If your

- right haymaker can knock your opponent's body off balance, you give yourself a "+1".
- your opponent's jab can hit your face, you give yourself a "-1".

After 20 tries, you will find out that you are probably on the positive side than on the negative side.

Dragonzbane76

04-18-2013, 06:55 PM

hook has more rotation on the lead foot with the arm following the movement and rotation of the body. this was a side step. :)

Grumblegeezer

04-18-2013, 08:35 PM

BPWT -- The problem with this isn't the technique, but the way it's demonstrated.

First off, his footwork isn't visible, since he's shown from the waist up. You and I know how he's stepping in and off-line, and rotating into the punch ...because we train this footwork. I used in in WT with LT and a more aggressive, but analogous step in Escrima. It does work, if done right.

Secondly, the deflecting hand is a WT fook-sau. It's almost like a palm-down tan sau... but in application a bit more extended, and energy is different, due to the fact that the elbow position is different. The TST guys do something similar, but call it dai-sau. I find it much more effective than a tan in this situation.

Thirdly, I hate it in these demos when they don't show a good aggressive follow up. Nobody, even Mike Tyson in his prime could depend upon ending it with one punch. Yeah, it could happen, but what if you land your shot, and the other guy just takes it, tucks his head and keeps on coming?

So, I have no problem with the technique, but I do question the presentation.

BPWT

04-18-2013, 10:03 PM

poulperadieux

04-18-2013, 10:40 PM

Yep, thai boxers deflect hooks palm down when bare handed, so I don't do it with a tan either, and don't teach it with a tan before explaining the fook, waste of time.

I've got a few MMA guys coming at my place tonight, I'll ask them to do combinations on me to have more live situations than in this video I shot earlier :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOHT2mZwMpg

If someone has special request for the video tonight, it will be welcomed !

poulperadieux

04-18-2013, 10:47 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER8s4cDMTGc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-umCbT-Iik

fook palm down, for the ones reluctant to work muay boran AND Wing Chun, pretty much the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8Lrm1J3c8

Elbows in boran.

EternalSpring

04-19-2013, 12:05 AM

For all I know, that Ving Tsun guy may be the most bad a$$ fighter in the world, but that video is a good example of why most non-Ving Tsunners (and some Tsunners as well) talk down on Ving Tsun.

BPWT

04-19-2013, 01:02 AM

For all I know, that Ving Tsun guy may be the most bad a$$ fighter in the world, but that video is a good example of why most non-Ving Tsunners (and some Tsunners as well) talk down on Ving Tsun.

Okay. People are free to train whatever other arts they want :rolleyes:

And in my experience, people from every art talk smack about every other art. Should I care? :D. Like I said, I have used this and it works.

But if you have a clip you prefer... go and watch it. ;):D

Frost

04-19-2013, 01:43 AM

GlennR

04-19-2013, 02:05 AM

Secondly, the deflecting hand is a WT fook-sau. It's almost like a palm-down tan sau... but in application a bit more extended, and energy is different, due to the fact that the elbow position is different. The TST guys do something similar, but call it dai-sau. I find it much more effective than a tan in this situation.

Hi GG
Yep, TST guys do Dai-Sau, though its not like a "fook"

GlennR

04-19-2013, 02:13 AM

poulperadieux

04-19-2013, 03:25 AM

Good clips and, if one looks closely, like WC they ARE looking for the bridge.

Well done Poopy!

You Goat to learn Muay Boran Graham, I Say.

GlennR

04-19-2013, 04:08 AM

You Goat to learn Muay Boran Graham, I Say.

He doesnt need to learm Muay Boran, but wouldnt hurt training with them

poulperadieux

04-19-2013, 04:13 AM

He doesnt need to learm Muay Boran, but wouldnt hurt training with them

Why do you talk about yourself at the third person Graham?

JPinAZ

04-19-2013, 11:08 AM

Yes, completely agree Grumblegeezer. :) And I think this is why I am not agreeing with John - without seeing the WT guy's footwork I think people easily miss that his body is not where it started from and so the punch is largely negated regardless of what the WT guy does with his left hand.

I tried explaining it by mentioning the specific Chum Kiu footwork, but this might also be different lineage to lineage.

Interestingly, I've seen the same ideas used in Japanese sword work too, against a cut coming in at the same angle.

Sounds like you’re saying he's disregarding even the most basic of WC centerline principles by stepping/running away from the attack before he's even made contact or attempted to engage it on the centerline. IMO, No Centerline = No Wing Chun.
That said, And no offnse meant, I'd say this really has little to do with WC at this point and is probably posted in the wrong forum ;)

Grumblegeezer

04-19-2013, 12:30 PM

Sounds like you’re saying he's disregarding even the most basic of WC centerline principles by stepping/running away from the attack before he's even made contact or attempted to engage it on the centerline. IMO, No Centerline = No Wing Chun.
That said, And no offnse meant, I'd say this really has little to do with WC at this point and is probably posted in the wrong forum ;)

Not running away, but yeilding to the side as he receives the pressure of the attack. I have had very limited contact with HFY WC, but the one HFY student I met stressed a very solid stance, and did not yield much. The "WT" guys tend to favor much lighter, yielding footwork. They still maintain forward pressure and centerling orientation. Or at least if they're doing it right, they do! ;)

imperialtaichi

04-19-2013, 03:37 PM

This is my take on it.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151625975522053

GlennR

04-19-2013, 04:33 PM

This is my take on it.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151625975522053

Sound self defense John

JPinAZ

04-19-2013, 05:16 PM

Not running away, but yeilding to the side as he receives the pressure of the attack. I have had very limited contact with HFY WC, but the one HFY student I met stressed a very solid stance, and did not yield much. The "WT" guys tend to favor much lighter, yielding footwork. They still maintain forward pressure and centerling orientation. Or at least if they're doing it right, they do! ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what is done in the video won't work. I just would never advocate giving up or 'yielding' your position before contact is made - which is exactly what I see in the video. He does move offline of the original A-to-B centerline to pull of the block, which imo violates WC centerline ideas, as well as putting him more in-line for an attack from the other hand.

While HFY does stress good stance & root to support proper wing chun structure (as I hope all WC does), it doesn't mean we never move. I'm just guessing here, but maybe the point that was being made at the time you experienced HFY was that we don't move 'just because'. If I can stand my ground and deal with the threat with minimal movement or footwork, that is just smart wing chun - if approaching fighting from an idea of economy of motion and maximal efficiency!

And. in HFY, having a set point of reference for your self is key to understanding wing chun A-to-B centerline concepts for engagement. Maybe it's just we have different ideas and understanding of wing chun centerline?
To help clarify, here's a quick blog entry on the subject by somoene you may know :) http://www.hungfablog.com/2013/04/18/blog-post-centerline-wing-chun/

imperialtaichi

04-19-2013, 05:24 PM

Sound self defense John

Haha, I think like a girl ;-)

Paddington

04-20-2013, 04:47 AM

I tend to use more of a biu sau / high fook sau shape so I can disengage my biceps. Structurally speaking I get my body mass behind it and have found it to be able to withstand big haymakers thrown with full body weight.

As for a 'proper hook' thrown tight and and fast, well, that is a different story.

Grumblegeezer

04-23-2013, 07:32 AM

hunt1

04-23-2013, 07:48 AM

Same problem but different example. In first vid haymaker is coming from back leg and Leung Ting guy moves right into the lead hand. In a real situation the other hand always comes and he would have surely been hit directly on side of face as he moved in. In second vid haymaker from lead leg but same problem leung ting person moves directly into the back power hand cross and would end up on his ass or worse if this is done in a real situation against anyone with any training at all.

The only reason either example looks good is because the attacker wildly commits with punch and allows their back hand to go dead just dropping out of the way.

The more interesting discussion and if I have time will come back to is the footwork,body positioning and usage.

Wing Chun fist saying's " receive what comes ", " My opponent moves but I move first", " Footwork is to be fast, nimble and ever changing". How do we combine all 3? JP goes with sound structure to receive but is critical of the footwork. Geezer seems to go with footwork and critical of the solid structure route. How do we combine both? Can we combine both? How do we receive?

EternalSpring

04-23-2013, 12:05 PM

Okay. People are free to train whatever other arts they want :rolleyes:

And in my experience, people from every art talk smack about every other art. Should I care? :D. Like I said, I have used this and it works.

But if you have a clip you prefer... go and watch it. ;):D

Well, to clarify, my comment was more based on the presentation. I know the concept(s) work, but I never really was a big fan of people proving their techniques or concepts by using them against half a$$ed attacks. In a way, it's almost as if people are training to learn how to fight untrained people.

And I agree that lots of people talk smack. But not all negative sounding comments are talking smack, imo.

EternalSpring

04-23-2013, 12:22 PM

Wing Chun fist saying's " receive what comes ", " My opponent moves but I move first", " Footwork is to be fast, nimble and ever changing". How do we combine all 3? JP goes with sound structure to receive but is critical of the footwork. Geezer seems to go with footwork and critical of the solid structure route. How do we combine both? Can we combine both? How do we receive?

I think both can be combined, in fact, they should be combined and that's probably how it was always intended to be. Imo, it's no different in Ving Tsun than any other martial art or even any sport. Basketball players have to dribble, catch, throw, shoot all while moving and having people trying to stop them from scoring. Handball players have to move around and plant themselves to hit with accuracy and power and immediately move again. Boxers/Muay Thai Guys/Grapplers all have to move while being rooted while still being able to receive and respond to attacks.

How do we train it? I would say some form of contact sparring where there's enough intensity to test moving, receiving, attacking, etc. It'll force people to move naturally without a premade pattern, and this will naturally force the people training to deal with "moving while being rooted and attacking/defending/etc" because while moving naturally, attacks are bound to be made and both people will feel where their structure, movement, or other techniques are compromised. Once they feel this, they'll be able to work on it and refine it.

Paddington

04-23-2013, 02:28 PM

Here's Michael Casey of EBMAS, another WT branch, demonstrating essentially the same attack and defense as in the clip posted in the OP. I think this one is a little clearer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfCcpyqO4Io

What else can I say, except "Red pants!" :p

I have an issue with this video. In the street role play the two gents are already very close. I think this is quite realistic as usually the gap is small when it kicks off on the street. However, with the 'training role play' both partners do not even start within kicking distance of one another! Anyway, I could take this point further but feel I have said enough.

Sean66

04-24-2013, 08:40 AM

@Imperialtaichi
I like that. It reminds me of one of Rory Miller's reflex positions.
That elbow can not only protect, but can really hurt the aggressor when you really move in on him.
I use the same thing, but with the other arm and elbow low to protect the torso.

Grumblegeezer

04-25-2013, 10:02 AM

Same problem but different example. In first vid haymaker is coming from back leg and Leung Ting guy moves right into the lead hand. In a real situation the other hand always comes...

Agreed. That's why I always prefer to go to the outside when possible. Sometimes it's not possible. A good angle and simultaneous defense/attack can beat that second punch. That's the objective here. Of course there are other options. Moving inside with an elbow like John does has a definite appeal.

The more interesting discussion and if I have time will come back to is the footwork,body positioning and usage.

Wing Chun fist saying's " receive what comes ", " My opponent moves but I move first", " Footwork is to be fast, nimble and ever changing". How do we combine all 3? JP goes with sound structure to receive but is critical of the footwork. Geezer seems to go with footwork and critical of the solid structure route. How do we combine both? Can we combine both? How do we receive?

These are very good questions. And for the record, I don't criticise those who favor a strongly rooted stance. There's a time and a place for that. There are already enough people on this forum with an extremely narrow concept of what constitues good WC without me joining in.

One problem I have with the very yieldng position is that if you give way too easily, you risk not controlling your opponent's center. If you maintain more pressure, it is easier to disrupt and turn your opponent aside and disrupt his power base. If you simply "float aside" there's nothing to control that "other hand" you talked about in the first quote above. Though for what it's worth, I don't think that's what Michael Casey was advocating in that clip.

Wayfaring

04-25-2013, 01:57 PM

GlennR

04-25-2013, 04:34 PM

One-steps are worthless. If you want to show skill against a hook, show something that works in an alive setting like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l2jp1DCOaE

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07E4ps4mkXw

You have to start somewhere.

FWIW, i like Johns clip (imperialtaichi), from a WC/self defense point of view, it covers well, goes straight in and , most importantly to me, creates a bridge with the opponent.

Get in, hurt the guy, get out.

Wayfaring

04-25-2013, 06:47 PM

You have to start somewhere.
And you have to progress to somewhere. That somewhere is beyond a one-step response replete with verbosity of explanation.

FWIW, i like Johns clip (imperialtaichi), from a WC/self defense point of view, it covers well, goes straight in and , most importantly to me, creates a bridge with the opponent.

Yeah, the move is fundamentally sound there. But put that movement in the context of the two clips I posted, and it's not enough. It's a whole lot of covering up to deal with one punch, which will limit mobility and speed. The second or third punch in the combo is what you have to worry about there.

Also, wherever in the world did you get the idea that "creating a bridge with the opponent" is what you want to do? Why? So you can chi sau with him? If there is no bridge, you are completely free to punch the guy in the face. Attack and pursue. If there is a bridge, sink it.

Get in, hurt the guy, get out.

No, no, no. That's a boxer's jab. That's tag point fighting. In WCK, you get in, control centerline and space, sink a bridge if there, and strike and pursue.

GlennR

04-25-2013, 10:39 PM

And you have to progress to somewhere. That somewhere is beyond a one-step response replete with verbosity of explanation.

And if you cant even do one step properly then its not much point moving on till you can.

Yeah, the move is fundamentally sound there. But put that movement in the context of the two clips I posted, and it's not enough. It's a whole lot of covering up to deal with one punch, which will limit mobility and speed. The second or third punch in the combo is what you have to worry about there.

And by holding that bridge that John has created, the boxer will struggle to get those combinations off. Also, as you mention in your next comment, using that bridge to control centre of gravity will make it harder still.
If you want to stand back and trade with a boxer in his range you will get beaten up.

Also, wherever in the world did you get the idea that "creating a bridge with the opponent" is what you want to do? Why?

Ideally, id like to smash his face in, but if that fails, my ideal range as a WC guy is in that close in range where contact is inevitable..... IMO thats where WC works best

If there is no bridge, you are completely free to punch the guy in the face. Attack and pursue. If there is a bridge, sink it.

And if there is no bridge, as per the boxing clips you put up, youll get your head taken off by a boxer...... which leads to...

No, no, no. That's a boxer's jab.

I wasnt referring to a single strike but the person as a whole. Its self defense, get in, hurt him, get out........ not a bad goal when you are being attacked on the street... much like Johns clip.

In WCK, you get in, control centerline and space, sink a bridge if there, and strike and pursue.

Apart from the pursue bit at the end.... thats exactly what i said basically, bridge included!

BPWT

04-26-2013, 12:54 AM

One-steps are worthless. If you want to show skill against a hook, show something that works in an alive setting like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l2jp1DCOaE

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07E4ps4mkXw

As Glenn says, one-step is where you start. So not worthless, in my opinion. Actually, of great value as they are a platform you build from.

Both of these boxing clips are very cool - but it's just a different game, IMO. An awesome game, but different. :) In the clips, as the punches start to fly you see either covering/shielding with the gloves and forearm, or ducking where you let the punch (gloved) slide over your sweaty head.

It's great in the ring. But would you employ these tactics against a bare fist? Would you want to shield with your hand/wrist/forearm (taking the hit pretty much directly), or duck low and let the strike graze your head (judge it badly and you take a strike to the head)?

Both could of course work against a bare-knuckle hit - but could cause you damage even if you pull it off. Which I think is a risk.

The clip I posted at the start of the thread is one of the basic Lat Sau entries (in Leung Ting's Wing Tsun)... you learn it one-step, like in the clip, but Lat Sau is about flow and continuous attacks - so it is just the start of the learning process.

Edit: Lat Sau training is also 'free' once the initial attack comes in - there is no pre-set winner/loser in the exchange - you attack and counter attack depending on what happens, and what you're given. Typically, you start light and then over time build up the intensity, power, speed, etc.

Wayfaring

04-26-2013, 07:26 AM

As Glenn says, one-step is where you start. So not worthless, in my opinion. Actually, of great value as they are a platform you build from.

Worthless. I have yet to see a competent boxer post up a stupid one step response to a punch. Yet that's all we have in WCK for instruction on the internet.

Both of these boxing clips are very cool - but it's just a different game, IMO. An awesome game, but different. :) In the clips, as the punches start to fly you see either covering/shielding with the gloves and forearm, or ducking where you let the punch (gloved) slide over your sweaty head.

No, it's the same game. It's close quarter striking in a live environment. You may think it's different because you don't train live that way.

It's great in the ring. But would you employ these tactics against a bare fist? Would you want to shield with your hand/wrist/forearm (taking the hit pretty much directly), or duck low and let the strike graze your head (judge it badly and you take a strike to the head)?

Yes. It works the same with bare fists. Quite obviously you don't train live, or you wouldn't be talking like this. All gloves do is protect the hands and allow you to hit harder. Harder like what you would expect in a self-defense scenario, but don't train for because you don't train with gloves.

The clip I posted at the start of the thread is one of the basic Lat Sau entries (in Leung Ting's Wing Tsun)... you learn it one-step, like in the clip, but Lat Sau is about flow and continuous attacks - so it is just the start of the learning process.

Everybody starts learning technique one step at a time. The clip you posted was retarded. You really can't see how bad the attacking punch is, how unrealistic, telegraphed, in poor form, and never really intending to hit the opponent without slowing it down and looking at it frame by frame. I've seen better haymakers thrown by little old ladies.

k gledhill

04-26-2013, 07:34 AM

Worthless. I have yet to see a competent boxer post up a stupid one step response to a punch. Yet that's all we have in WCK for instruction on the internet.

No, it's the same game. It's close quarter striking in a live environment. You may think it's different because you don't train live that way.

Yes. It works the same with bare fists. Quite obviously you don't train live, or you wouldn't be talking like this. All gloves do is protect the hands and allow you to hit harder. Harder like what you would expect in a self-defense scenario, but don't train for because you don't train with gloves.

Everybody starts learning technique one step at a time. The clip you posted was retarded. You really can't see how bad the attacking punch is, how unrealistic, telegraphed, in poor form, and never really intending to hit the opponent without slowing it down and looking at it frame by frame. I've seen better haymakers thrown by little old ladies.

Agree totally. Why angling and tactical positioning are so important. "Facing" a boxer is not a good place to be. Positioning oneself in response to a leading arm is a bit like chess, work reality of a 3 move exchange, not losing sight of following moves.

BPWT

04-26-2013, 09:08 AM

Worthless. I have yet to see a competent boxer post up a stupid one step response to a punch. Yet that's all we have in WCK for instruction on the internet.

I too would not expect to see a boxer post a clip of such a learning device (as i posted) that is typical to Chinese martial art, specifically Wing Tsun. :rolleyes:

That said - and I ask because I don't box - when you first start learning to box do you not start with isolated punches? And then move on to combinations. Or do you start with complex combinations?

No, it's the same game. It's close quarter striking in a live environment. You may think it's different because you don't train live that way.

Well, you are correct in that I don't train Wing Tsun wearing boxing gloves. But seriously, it is a completely different game. When I spar we wear light gloves, gum shield, and box, and I have taken more than a few kicks to that box when my stance was too open.

Where you box, you're allowed to kick the nuts?

Or allow to grab and twist the head?

Or sweep a leg?

Or elbow?

Just because two arts focus on close-quarter work, it hardly means they are playing the same game. I assume you wouldn't say a boxer plays the same game as a Thai boxer. Many similarities, but, you know, those kicks and knees kinda change the game being played. Or does your boxing school let you knee people?

Yes. It works the same with bare fists.

You think being hit in the face bare-knuckle, with you having no mouth guard, is the same as you being hit in the face by a guy wearing boxing gloves? Is your head made of concrete? (Actually, don't answer that).

Quite obviously you don't train live, or you wouldn't be talking like this.

I spar - with other WT guys and people (friends) from other arts - it is live, no, to simply go at it? Or do you mean 'live' in a different way?

I wrote: "Lat Sau training is also 'free' once the initial attack comes in - there is no pre-set winner/loser in the exchange - you attack and counter attack depending on what happens, and what you're given. Typically, you start light and then over time build up the intensity, power, speed, etc."

How do you define live training? I am not understanding you.

All gloves do is protect the hands and allow you to hit harder. Harder like what you would expect in a self-defense scenario, but don't train for because you don't train with gloves.

Yes, boxing gloves protect the hands - but a boxer also uses the gloves to cover/shield against punches. Are you saying you would happily let someone, bare knuckle, hit your hands and wrists when you too weren't wearing gloves?

If so, I guess you don't use your hands for your day job.

Everybody starts learning technique one step at a time.

Eh? It's worthless but everyone does it? Make your mind up. :)

The clip you posted was retarded. You really can't see how bad the attacking punch is, how unrealistic, telegraphed, in poor form, and never really intending to hit the opponent without slowing it down and looking at it frame by frame. I've seen better haymakers thrown by little old ladies.

It is a demo - and I actually did say it was telegraphed. So my saying that would be an indication that I saw it... I think you might have taken a few punches to the head too many - you're getting mightily muddled. ;)

But look, if you don't train your Wing Chun this way - good for you. If you box and enjoy it, good for you.

YouKnowWho

04-26-2013, 11:26 AM

one-step is where you start.
Most of the time, your opponent starts with a right hook is to draw your attention to his right arm so he can attack you with a left hook. The "right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook" always come in as a combo.

A right hook will always followed by a left hook just as a groin kick will always be followed by a face punch, to use a single move is just not that effective.

BPWT

04-26-2013, 02:47 PM

Most of the time, your opponent starts with a right hook is to draw your attention to his right arm so he can attack you with a left hook. The "right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook" always come in as a combo.

A right hook will always followed by a left hook just as a groin kick will always followed by a face punch, to use a single move is just not that effective.

Sure! But the first thing you need to do is learn how to deal with/handle that first attack. Or to use Kevin's analogy... if you only focus on the King, and keep a watchful eye on he Queen, maybe that lowly Pawn ends the game.

That said, I think what you're saying applies largely to competitive fighting. Particularly true in boxing. There fighters know the opponent (have studied him), train specifically to exploit his perceived weaknesses, employ a specific set of tactics to that specific opponent (physical or even psychological), hope for a knockout but have themselves trained to go the full/maximum set of rounds, etc, etc.

Self defense is really not the same game, even if elements of the competitive training mentioned above are of use.

But like I said already, what you see in the clip I posted is the opening to some Lat Sau. There you work off of follow up attacks, counters, etc.

What's funny, is that I posted it thinking the footwork needed would probably be the main source of debate, as people might not agree with the Chum Kiu footwork, as it is taught by Leung Ting. :rolleyes: Instead people argue that the hook is not hook, that no one throws a single punch, that tan or fook can't 'block' such attacks, and so on :rolleyes: All of which is the ars@ end of the point of the content.

Sorry, but some of these comments go round and round and end up, always, in either:
a) What if he did this and I did that and he did this and....
b) You don't do live training
c) Boxers don't do that and they can fight
d) Why hasn't Wing Chun been used effectively in the UFC
e) You are wrong, it is a punching concept
f) Something involving PB :D

Earlier I said you don't even need to look at the clip and reference it via the fook sau, etc.

Alternatively we could see the clip via the ideas inside it. E.g. Attacking the weak side, moving into 'empty' space, borrowing force, attacking/maintaining center, etc.

Or even break it down to the use of timing (though hard to do when you can't see the feet, I admit), or think about things in terms of using weight (this footwork has an interesting function - which is why I mentioned the similar use in Japanese sword arts).

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Any second now Hendrik will pipe in about snakes and LaRoux will lay a cake about how he can't find a YouTube clip that shows it working against Mike Tyson, and Graham will then join to say Kevin is right... and then we'll get a clip of PB doing Lap Sau and 5 people will post to say it is "Epic." :-D

GlennR

04-27-2013, 01:05 AM

Worthless. I have yet to see a competent boxer post up a stupid one step response to a punch. Yet that's all we have in WCK for instruction on the internet.

Heres one.

http://www.myboxingcoach.com/boxing-techniques-parry-punches-lead-hand/

Everybody starts learning technique one step at a time. The clip you posted was retarded. You really can't see how bad the attacking punch is, how unrealistic, telegraphed, in poor form, and never really intending to hit the opponent without slowing it down and looking at it frame by frame. I've seen better haymakers thrown by little old ladies.

Make your mind up

Paddington

04-27-2013, 03:49 AM

Heres one.

http://www.myboxingcoach.com/boxing-techniques-parry-punches-lead-hand/ [...]

I really enjoyed the information available via that link. Thanks GlennR!

Wayfaring

04-27-2013, 05:35 AM

Heres one.

http://www.myboxingcoach.com/boxing-techniques-parry-punches-lead-hand/

I didn't see a stupid one-step response being taught there. I heard an amateur boxer that competed up to age 21 droning on about parries. If his droning voice wouldn't have put me to sleep I might have been able to focus on the details of what he was trying to teach.

Maybe I need to define what a "one-step response" is so that you don't get so easily lost?

Make your mind up

My mind is made up. The plethora of "one-step responses" I see posted up on the internet surrounding WCK is completely retarded. They show little to nothing of value that will help you deal with a hook in a live scenario. As they never show ANY progression from a one-step response to how it is applied in a live environment. And the responses usually involve multiple motions in response to a simple motion, which you simply will not have the time to perform in a live environment.

Let me know if I need to explain this slower to you guys.

Wayfaring

04-27-2013, 05:57 AM

I too would not expect to see a boxer post a clip of such a learning device (as i posted) that is typical to Chinese martial art, specifically Wing Tsun. :rolleyes:

This is because boxers focus on what works functionally as opposed to rolling their eyes and making distinctions about the nationality of origin of their art like that is supposed to make it more special.

That said - and I ask because I don't box - when you first start learning to box do you not start with isolated punches? And then move on to combinations. Or do you start with complex combinations?

Again my criticism for the slow is that they DON'T move on to combinations.

Well, you are correct in that I don't train Wing Tsun wearing boxing gloves. But seriously, it is a completely different game. When I spar we wear light gloves, gum shield, and box, and I have taken more than a few kicks to that box when my stance was too open.

Well the fact you even do that sparring probably puts you in a group of about 10% of WCK practitioners.

Where you box, you're allowed to kick the nuts?

MMA sparring sure. Well, it happens but you're supposed to avoid it. We have a specific rule - if your shirt isn't tucked in, your nuts are fair game. If it is, kicks to the legs and midsection but avoid the groin.

Or allow to grab and twist the head?

Or sweep a leg?

Or elbow?

Yes to the above, and LOL at sweep the leg.

Just because two arts focus on close-quarter work, it hardly means they are playing the same game. I assume you wouldn't say a boxer plays the same game as a Thai boxer. Many similarities, but, you know, those kicks and knees kinda change the game being played. Or does your boxing school let you knee people?

The fact you think it's a different game shows you're a newb at this. It is close-quarter fighting. I spar straight boxing and MMA. So quite obviously you know what rules apply to each or can assume somewhat closely.

You think being hit in the face bare-knuckle, with you having no mouth guard, is the same as you being hit in the face by a guy wearing boxing gloves? Is your head made of concrete? (Actually, don't answer that).

What I think is the concepts I train apply to bare-knuckle. The way we train boxing it absolutely would apply to bare-knuckle and have the same concepts. And yes, parts of your head are as hard as concrete. Other parts are not. This is why you tuck your chin and intercept jabs with your forehead. You can pretty easily break someone's hands that way without a whole lot of effort bare-knuckle.

I spar - with other WT guys and people (friends) from other arts - it is live, no, to simply go at it? Or do you mean 'live' in a different way?

I'm going to go with "kind of" that way. You're closer than chi sau but not there yet.

Yes, boxing gloves protect the hands - but a boxer also uses the gloves to cover/shield against punches. Are you saying you would happily let someone, bare knuckle, hit your hands and wrists when you too weren't wearing gloves?

If so, I guess you don't use your hands for your day job.

The cover changes a little, but yes I'm saying that what I train with 16 oz gloves directly translates to bare-knuckle.

Eh? It's worthless but everyone does it? Make your mind up. :)

One-step response videos such as virtually everything I've seen in WCK posted on the internet in this category are worthless. They are worthless because they contain multiple complex motions in response to a very simple motion that you will not have time to accomplish in a live environment.

But yes, you do have to isolate movement to train it, thus start with a simple response to a simple action.

It is a demo - and I actually did say it was telegraphed. So my saying that would be an indication that I saw it... I think you might have taken a few punches to the head too many - you're getting mightily muddled. ;)

Telegraphed is an understatement. The guy makes a retarded whipping motion with his arm that in no way even resembles as much skill as you'd see from a drunk guy at 3am trying to throw a haymaker with no training. If there was no opponent that punch would probably wrap around an he would slap himself in the head.

And I actually take very little damage to the head sparring. It's amazing how once you start training live in a proper environment with proper gear how you can actually do that. You should try it some time. Then you won't sound like such a white knight in full battle regalia on the internet.

Wayfaring

04-27-2013, 06:08 AM

Sure! But the first thing you need to do is learn how to deal with/handle that first attack. Or to use Kevin's analogy... if you only focus on the King, and keep a watchful eye on he Queen, maybe that lowly Pawn ends the game.

Right. So you don't accomplish this by studying one-step instructionals on the internet.

Self defense is really not the same game, even if elements of the competitive training mentioned above are of use.

Right. Because of all the concrete, broken glass, and hypodermic needles laying around that you have to deal with in self-defense scenarios.

The 90's called and they want their "street vs. sport" argument back.

What's funny, is that I posted it thinking the footwork needed would probably be the main source of debate, as people might not agree with the Chum Kiu footwork, as it is taught by Leung Ting. :rolleyes: Instead people argue that the hook is not hook, that no one throws a single punch, that tan or fook can't 'block' such attacks, and so on :rolleyes: All of which is the ars@ end of the point of the content.

Too much wrong with the video to even get to that level of detail.

BPWT

04-27-2013, 07:04 AM

Right. So you don't accomplish this by studying one-step instructionals on the internet.

Right. Because of all the concrete, broken glass, and hypodermic needles laying around that you have to deal with in self-defense scenarios.

The 90's called and they want their "street vs. sport".

Too much selective reading from you for me to keep multi-quoting. I've already said that one-step is only the beginning of Lat Sau training.

Regarding street vs. sport, and whether something is or is not the same game, it's dead simple. :D

Watch two boxers from your gym fight a round. When it's finished, ask them to remove gloves and hand wrapping, take out the gum shields and remove the boxes from their shorts. Tell the ref to f@ck off. Ask them to fight a second round, with the same intent as the first round.

If it's the same game, they'll fight the same way.

Only... they won't fight the same way - because it isn't. They won't try the same combinations because the risks are now much higher. They will spend more time avoiding and trying not to engage. They will be worried about their teeth and their hands. The game is now a very different game.

I'm guessing you've never seen, first hand, an illegally organized bare-knuckle fight. The tactics are a million miles away from what you see with two boxers in a ring.

If you don't accept this, fair enough. Good luck with your competition work, and I hope you never make the decision to fight in a bare-knuckle event.

BPWT

04-27-2013, 07:07 AM

... and LOL at sweep the leg.

Yes, I thought about adding "Put him in a body bag", as the final point. ;)

Wayfaring

04-27-2013, 07:35 AM

To much selective reading from you for me to keep multi-quoting. I've already said that one-step is only the beginning of Lat Sau training.

So I'm taking from this that you now understand my criticism of one-step responses. But you want to focus on you and what you said.

Watch two boxers from your gym fight a round. When it's finished, ask them to remove gloves and hand wrapping, take out the gum shields and remove the boxes from their shorts. Tell the ref to f@ck off. Ask them to fight a second round, with the same intent as the first round.

If it's the same game, they'll fight the same way.

Only... they won't fight the same way - because it isn't. They won't try the same combinations because the risks are now much higher. They will spend more time avoiding and trying not to engage. They will be worried about their teeth and their hands. The game is now a very different game.

The main problem here is all your analogy and viewpoint is centered around WATCHING something rather than EXPERIENCING it. That's why your similarities and differences are so off.

First you are picking boxing, not MMA, which has very clearly restrictive rules surrounding the competition and they are vastly different than a street fight. However, empirical evidence shows boxers doing very well in street altercations. Why is this? They are so different according to you.

The adjustments you describe basically to me sound like you are saying they are more tentative with bare knuckle than gloves. Of course they are. They are also more tentative when you add grappling into it. Matter of fact, that's the first thing I do to someone eating me up with free hands - take them down and put them on their butt. After that, they aren't as free with their hands, if they can get up again.

So the conclusion with a boxer is take off the gear and they will make some minor adjustments. Gotcha.

So let's look at a WCK guy. What happens when you put 16 oz gloves on him? Largely him hitting himself in the face from impact of strikes hitting his gloves. He simply isn't conditioned to sparring with contact like that. But you want me to believe that take off the gloves and now he's this monster in the ring and in self defense scenarios? Not so much.

And LOL at your unsanctioned bareknuckle matches. Didn't those die out at the turn of the last century with John L Sullivan? Even smokers now have you wear 4 oz gloves.

If you want to speak about street fights and mma fighters I can only say that I allegedly may see this once in a while when I am allegedly around a group of fighters that may be letting off some steam in a pub or something allegedly like that. I allegedly may view their techniques as effective while allegedly exiting said pub before arrival of authorities. And the mma coach's advice for street fights is to just throw back because most people aren't used to getting hit in street fights. This is the same coach that also offers the observation that if you want to punch someone in the face on the street, it will cost you an average of $7k. From empirical evidence.

So inventory on the sport vs street argument:

1. Hypodermic needles and broken glass - check
2. Unsanctioned bare knuckle events - check

What else do we need to cover here?

BPWT

04-27-2013, 09:50 AM

So I'm taking from this that you now understand my criticism of one-step responses. But you want to focus on you and what you said.

Nope. Again, I see its value as a tool for starting your training. If you think that means I'm understanding or agreeing with you, okay - you can think that.

The main problem here is all your analogy and viewpoint is centered around WATCHING something rather than EXPERIENCING it. That's why your similarities and differences are so off...... And LOL at your unsanctioned bareknuckle matches. Didn't those die out at the turn of the last century...

Over a period of roughly 2 years I saw 6 such fights - access because I knew someone who participated. Access to most of the others involved as I'm an accredited journalist and so could speak with people with the assurance I could keep their names withheld (as protected sources).

So it is not just about watching how these people fight and seeing why they use what they use... I spoke with fighters and got to hear about it in their own words.

Some had spent time in boxing gyms, some had some judo experience, some had no formal training at all - they were just, well, crazy and naturally talented at fighting.

Of the fights I saw, none of them went to the ground. Only one fight ended quickly. None of them looked like a boxing bout or, for that matter, a fight from a MMA event.

The guys who had formal experience said it helped them - they were talking about the training and the exposure. All of them said the fights they had now were nothing like competition fights or sparring in the gym. Their words, not mine.

If your experiences are different, fair enough. I really don't care either way. Train how you like and believe what you like. You rock! :eek:

I spar, but I have no interest in participating in competitions. I also wouldn't take part in a bare-knuckle fight, for any reason or motive.

Regarding Wing Tsun, it suits my needs. If you think the training methods suck, okay... then it's not for you. You are too bad-arse maybe.

GlennR

04-27-2013, 03:56 PM

I didn't see a stupid one-step response being taught there.

I did, it was a single defense against a single technique..... whats so hard to grasp about that?

I heard an amateur boxer that competed up to age 21 droning on about parries. If his droning voice wouldn't have put me to sleep I might have been able to focus on the details of what he was trying to teach.

Nothing near as appealing as your American drawl i take it...... honestly, you need to discredit his accent and his boxing record?

Maybe I need to define what a "one-step response" is so that you don't get so easily lost?

Maybe you do, what with your superior accent and understanding of the concept f "one", we simple folk just cant keep up

My mind is made up. The plethora of "one-step responses" I see posted up on the internet surrounding WCK is completely retarded. They show little to nothing of value that will help you deal with a hook in a live scenario. As they never show ANY progression from a one-step response to how it is applied in a live environment. And the responses usually involve multiple motions in response to a simple motion, which you simply will not have the time to perform in a live environment.

Those combinations the boxers threw in those clips are merely a whole heap of single techniques strung together, be they offensive or defensive.
There is NO point moving onto combinations until each of your single techniques are fundamentally sound, particularly in boxing where weight transfer and feet positioning is so crucial to be able to move onto the next technique.

Having said that, i basically agree with what you say about the poor videos of WC single techniques on youtube, just dont generalise every combat style by your opinion of some WC clips

Let me know if I need to explain this slower to you guys.

What... like one step?

Wayfaring

04-28-2013, 05:44 PM

Over a period of roughly 2 years I saw 6 such fights - access because I knew someone who participated. Access to most of the others involved as I'm an accredited journalist and so could speak with people with the assurance I could keep their names withheld (as protected sources).

So it is not just about watching how these people fight and seeing why they use what they use... I spoke with fighters and got to hear about it in their own words.

Some had spent time in boxing gyms, some had some judo experience, some had no formal training at all - they were just, well, crazy and naturally talented at fighting.

Of the fights I saw, none of them went to the ground. Only one fight ended quickly. None of them looked like a boxing bout or, for that matter, a fight from a MMA event.

The guys who had formal experience said it helped them - they were talking about the training and the exposure. All of them said the fights they had now were nothing like competition fights or sparring in the gym. Their words, not mine.

And similar fights have been going on under the title "vale tudo" in Brazil for the past century. This is Brazil's MMA or rather NHB contests. Bare knuckle, no time limits or pads. Because it's in Brazil, there is ground skill and fights do go to the ground and people do finish fights with submissions. If you didn't see that it's probably because the skill levels of the people involved didn't support it.

I spar, but I have no interest in participating in competitions. I also wouldn't take part in a bare-knuckle fight, for any reason or motive.

Regarding Wing Tsun, it suits my needs. If you think the training methods suck, okay... then it's not for you. You are too bad-arse maybe.

Nice sweeping generalization. Yes I think for Wing Tsun to be effective in a self-defense situation consistently, you are going to need to apply modern training methods and train in an alive fashion. You need to condition yourself (you meaning anyone in general) to be comfortable with higher levels of contact. Sipping tea, playing chi sau, and regaling stories of conquest of sigung on the Hong Kong rooftops simply won't cut it.

This doesn't mean whaling on each other to the point of injury 3-5x per week - that's counterproductive. It just means learn to scale the level of contact up to test your comfortability with it. That way you condition your nervous system and emotions to handle that without freezing up when you do face the real fight or flight self-defense scenario.

Wayfaring

04-28-2013, 06:03 PM

I did, it was a single defense against a single technique..... whats so hard to grasp about that?

It is not the same thing. In that clip an amateur boxer who has a paid website for boxing techniques is explaining the concepts behind parrying, and in the process demonstrates some of what he is discussing. That is vastly different than the standard craptastic one-step-opponent-does-8-step-response, finishing the fight every time.

Nothing near as appealing as your American drawl i take it...... honestly, you need to discredit his accent and his boxing record?

By "droning on" I wasn't referring to his nationality or accent, simply the slow, over-analytic, and pedantic method in which he was teaching. But hey if you need to reconstruct the Revolutionary War to feel better more power to you. Regarding his boxing record, that speaks to credibility. He has SOME credibility. He competed as a teen athlete in amateur boxing, and helps coach others to do the same. He doesn't have as much credibility as a pro boxer or trainer of a pro boxer. I'm not trying to say the guy's instruction is fundamentally wrong - it isn't. I was only watching that video to evaluate your using it as a refutation that boxers DO put up stupid one-step response videos. I didn't see that in this video. I saw someone teaching a fundamental concept and demonstrating it. john's video was the same - demo-ing a fundamental concept. In other words, not what I was talking about.

Those combinations the boxers threw in those clips are merely a whole heap of single techniques strung together, be they offensive or defensive. There is NO point moving onto combinations until each of your single techniques are fundamentally sound, particularly in boxing where weight transfer and feet positioning is so crucial to be able to move onto the next technique.

Not true at all. In your first mitt session with a good boxing coach, you will be throwing combos, and being corrected on weight transfer, feet positioning, etc. FROM DAY ONE. And that is why they will be fundamentally more alive and have better footwork and movement than a typical TCMA student. Because they train it fundamentally. Why WCK sifus can't learn from this and adapt teaching techniques is beyond me.

Having said that, i basically agree with what you say about the poor videos of WC single techniques on youtube, just dont generalise every combat style by your opinion of some WC clips

Of course in generalization you are going to offend the one guy doing it right. But the WCK ones are like the worst in general.

Yoshiyahu

05-13-2013, 02:23 PM

In this clip I see the Elbow is Locked...

meaning the arm is completely straight....

From the guy punching his structure will be unable to land that attack with out hurting his hand. HIS hand and arm structure is poor!!!

thats why that technique look so effective...Had his Haymaker had any arched...It would collasp a Tan sau be it left or right!!!

The Tan Sau is not strong enough to with stand powerful horizontally swinging blow...if you doubt me try a Tan Sau to a high round house kick...tell me what happens?

guy b.

05-13-2013, 04:04 PM

In your first mitt session with a good boxing coach, you will be throwing combos, and being corrected on weight transfer, feet positioning, etc. FROM DAY ONE. And that is why they will be fundamentally more alive and have better footwork and movement than a typical TCMA student. Because they train it fundamentally. Why WCK sifus can't learn from this and adapt teaching techniques is beyond me.

Feel free to take your own advice and post it on the internet for the satisfaction of your apparent quest for the real wing chun, o wise one

Wayfaring

05-13-2013, 04:39 PM

Feel free to take your own advice and post it on the internet for the satisfaction of your apparent quest for the real wing chun, o wise one

The butthurt is strong with this one.

I have plenty of public fights posted up of the people I train with on the sticky thread for that kind of stuff. We do train the way I described that you are quoting.

guy b.

05-13-2013, 11:00 PM

The butthurt is strong with this one.

I have plenty of public fights posted up of the people I train with on the sticky thread for that kind of stuff. We do train the way I described that you are quoting.

Are they doing wing chun that meets all of your criteria? If so direct me to the link and I will have a look.

YouKnowWho

05-14-2013, 12:03 AM

The Tan Sau is not strong enough to with stand powerful horizontally swinging blow...if you doubt me try a Tan Sau to a high round house kick...tell me what happens?
Agree!

Someone told me that there was a tournament in Hong Kong many years ago. A CLF guy threw a right haymaker to a WC guy. The WC guy used left Tan Shou to block it.. The right haymaker went through the left Tan Shou, still hit the WC guy's head. The WC guy went back to Yeh Men. Yeh Men told him that if the right haymaker came, one should used right Tan Shou plus body rotation to block it.

chaotic2k

05-14-2013, 04:20 AM

A tan sau mind set to block a hook punch is suicide.

Try mixing it up with someone and see.

k gledhill

05-14-2013, 05:10 AM

A tan sau mind set to block a hook punch is suicide.

Try mixing it up with someone and see.

Agree. Suicide. Not to mention how silly you look as the hook/haymaker is a feint to a bull rush.

YouKnowWho

05-14-2013, 05:38 AM

Agree. Suicide. Not to mention how silly you look as the hook/haymaker is a feint to a bull rush.

It's not hard to tell a real haymaker from a fake one. For a real haymaker, the power comes from the full body spin. For a fake one, there won't be any full body spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubEiq2dsSI8

You can use a "fully body spin" haymaker to hurt your opponent's Tan Shou. You can also use your "full body spin" Tan Shou to hurt your opponent's haymaker. It's your Gong vs. your opponent's Gong.

chaotic2k

05-14-2013, 05:54 AM

It's not hard to tell a real haymaker from a fake one. For a real haymaker, the power comes from the body spinning. For the fake one, the power comes from the arm only.

You can use a "fully body spin" haymaker to hurt your opponent's Tan Shou. You can also use your "full body spin" Tan Shou to hurt your opponent's haymaker. It's your Gong vs. your opponent's Gong.

Its not so much the type of punch. Its dealing with a rapid combo when you dont even see the punch. Its totally different to what so many WC guys think. The whole thread shows how most WC guys fear anything out side the "dojo". Also slightly going off point, but most wing chun guys fight in boxing range which is another reason its suicide. Gotta shut him down or its game over. Also using a taan to block any kind of punch is just chasing hands right?

wingchunIan

05-14-2013, 06:05 AM

Agree. Suicide. Not to mention how silly you look as the hook/haymaker is a feint to a bull rush.
a feint makes no odds whatsoever if the tan da is executed correctly, but of course as a technique its inferior to your alternative of....................

Paddington

05-14-2013, 06:13 AM

Agree. Suicide. Not to mention how silly you look as the hook/haymaker is a feint to a bull rush.

I've read this thread but can't remember if you mentioned how you would handle such a strike kev.

I agree with many here saying that tan would not work well. I think I mentioned that a ding sau or ding like biu, accompanied with turning or a step, may work better. Of course the other arm would be striking.

So Kev, how would you handle such strikes?

As an aside when I have sparred with boxes I've found that if just stand and exchange i.e. moving just in and out of arm range, I don't stand a chance and get picked off. My only response then and now is to bridge ASAP and go very close range to shut down those arms.

Is this the type of approach you would take kev so that the haymaker scenario just would not arise because you had closed the gap straight away?

Paddington

05-14-2013, 06:41 AM

What is a ding sau?

From what I have been previously taught ding sau is a high bridging arm, similar in many ways to a fook sau. The angle of the forearm is similar to that of jum sau.

You see that shape quite explicitly at the start of chum kui. The ding sau travels forwards with the wrist slightly hooked and relaxed. On and with contact it can be converted to a strike, ding jeung. In chum kui that is the bit at the end of the movement where the wrists, and I hate to explain it like this, snap forwards.

wingchunIan

05-14-2013, 08:13 AM

Its not so much the type of punch. Its dealing with a rapid combo when you dont even see the punch. Its totally different to what so many WC guys think. The whole thread shows how most WC guys fear anything out side the "dojo". Also slightly going off point, but most wing chun guys fight in boxing range which is another reason its suicide. Gotta shut him down or its game over. Also using a taan to block any kind of punch is just chasing hands right?

If you don't see the punch then unless you have some other way of detecting that its coming you get hit simples. As for dealing with rapid combos, the best defence is to shut the combo down at the first punch by controlling the space, disrupting the opponents structure and of course hitting! Try it for yourself using headguards or if you don't fancy it watch a boxing match. The best combination in the world comes to a grinding halt when the person throwing the combo gets hit. The best time to hit an opponent is when they are trying to hit you or when they least expect it which is often the same thing.
As for the last point you clearly have a different understanding of how to use tan sao. Intercepting with tan sao should shut down the opponent, control the space and create a momentary distortion in the opponents structure whilst you simultaneously hit.

Paddington

05-14-2013, 08:38 AM

Cheers for your reply Kev.

I like what you say about ducking, something I've used. I can see where in the wing chun I've been exposed to lowering and rising could be used to duck but it is not something I've ever seen made explicit where I have trained.

When you say 'being in the face or pocket' are you referring to going in very close as being a mistake against a boxer? Also what do you mean by 'side ward horizontal arm flip of bg'. I know the form, at least the way I was taught it but I am not sure what you are referring to here. Mun sau and jeung sau perhaps?

chaotic2k

05-14-2013, 09:58 AM

The answer to your question is in your first sentence above.

The answer to everything is nothing.....:cool:

Paddington

05-14-2013, 10:06 AM

Pocket is between the shoulders as they face with two arms. Like facing a equally armed person with 2 knives one in each hand. Where would you position yourself ?
Kick more.
The bg arm chasing horizontal and vertical/diagonal.

We don't box or trade punches with head slips.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems I am on the same page with you with regards to avoiding the pocket, now that I know what you mean. Yep harder to do than say, that I know.

With the ducking head slips, I assume that once that is complete you are moving into flank on one of the outside gates? That's the way I've worked it before though not often enough IMO.

EDIT: I do tend to kick more than my peers. That said, where I have trained before any type of attempt to train kicks in chi sau, gor sau or a more sparing like context, has been frowned upon unfortunately.

chaotic2k

05-14-2013, 10:12 AM

If you don't see the punch then unless you have some other way of detecting that its coming you get hit simples. As for dealing with rapid combos, the best defence is to shut the combo down at the first punch by controlling the space, disrupting the opponents structure and of course hitting! Try it for yourself using headguards or if you don't fancy it watch a boxing match. The best combination in the world comes to a grinding halt when the person throwing the combo gets hit. The best time to hit an opponent is when they are trying to hit you or when they least expect it which is often the same thing.
As for the last point you clearly have a different understanding of how to use tan sao. Intercepting with tan sao should shut down the opponent, control the space and create a momentary distortion in the opponents structure whilst you simultaneously hit.

Hi Ian

i appricate your views but my idea of fighting is different to yourself. I only use taan as connection training and all my blocking movements are punches and elbows control. I chase the central mass not the line from A to B. To block a hook i cover as a boxer. My method is covered with elbows connected to horse but hunched like a boxer. Everything is tight. I have sparred for many years against other styles etc. I know what works for myself. The conventional wing chun has failed me so many times because it cant cope with a fluid moving target who angles and punches different lines.

GlennR

05-14-2013, 03:03 PM

Hi Ian

i appricate your views but my idea of fighting is different to yourself. I only use taan as connection training and all my blocking movements are punches and elbows control. I chase the central mass not the line from A to B. To block a hook i cover as a boxer. My method is covered with elbows connected to horse but hunched like a boxer. Everything is tight. I have sparred for many years against other styles etc. I know what works for myself. The conventional wing chun has failed me so many times because it cant cope with a fluid moving target who angles and punches different lines.

Nice take on your idea of WC. And even nicer to hear someone say that you dont use tan to block a punch.. its about connection and getting his COG

Paddington

05-14-2013, 03:23 PM

[...] Why bg is left last or the errors become the way and we become wristy arm chasers. ; ) [...]

I did LOL at this. A lot of foreknowledge here me thinks. I agree with you though.

Btw I have heard the same about kicking from other sources. Kicking is alien to a boxer as are little sweeps to lunging jabs ; ) It is frowned on due to the effective nature to a boxer with weight forward on lead leg.

Just to be clear it was frowned upon in the Wing Chun classes I attended. Personally I love little sweeps but I tend to find that they only work when already bridged, well, at least for me that us.

Cheers again for your input.

wingchunIan

05-15-2013, 01:48 AM

Hi Ian

i appricate your views but my idea of fighting is different to yourself. I only use taan as connection training and all my blocking movements are punches and elbows control. I chase the central mass not the line from A to B. To block a hook i cover as a boxer. My method is covered with elbows connected to horse but hunched like a boxer. Everything is tight. I have sparred for many years against other styles etc. I know what works for myself. The conventional wing chun has failed me so many times because it cant cope with a fluid moving target who angles and punches different lines.

cool, to each their own and if it works for you then it works, nuff said. FWIW even if we have different views on tan sao we are in agreement with attacking the centre of mass.

guy b.

05-15-2013, 06:15 AM

Good stuff from chaotic2k

Yoshiyahu

05-31-2013, 04:54 PM

I JUST WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN...

frankly some people were babbling on about Tan Da...if you actually look...the guy is not using Tan Da...he is using Bil Sau but pushing the arm down as he would with a gum sau...

Look closely...at what Is doing...the palm is facing down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNmOUIK7bIM

Yes, he knows it's coming, and yes it is telegraphed regardless... but still I like it. :)

Footwork is the same as that used after the slant kick (the last kick) in our Chum Kiu form.

JPinAZ

05-31-2013, 10:21 PM

I JUST WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN...

frankly some people were babbling on about Tan Da...if you actually look...the guy is not using Tan Da...he is using Bil Sau but pushing the arm down as he would with a gum sau...

Look closely...at what Is doing...the palm is facing down!

No offense, but who cares what technique he's using? Taan, pak, biu, doesn't matter - it's concepts/principles that matter with WC application.
That said, his WC centerline is non-existent IMO. No WC Centerline - No WC. End of story :)

tc101

06-01-2013, 04:02 AM

No offense, but who cares what technique he's using? Taan, pak, biu, doesn't matter - it's concepts/principles that matter with WC application.
That said, his WC centerline is non-existent IMO. No WC Centerline - No WC. End of story :)

Concepts are useless if they cannot be expressed physically so technique is an absolute necessity. You could say no technique means no concept.

There is a very wide range in levels of performance in people using their wing chun so I do not think it is a matter of either having or not having wing chun but how well we perform with our wing chun.

guy b.

06-01-2013, 04:43 PM

YouKnowWho

06-01-2013, 07:06 PM

All good MA is principle based. .
Disagree,

If your hands and feet position, angle, force, coordination, ... are not precise, your principle won't work. Without a precise "technique", there is no such thing as "principle".

tc101

06-02-2013, 04:16 AM

All good MA is principle based. If you are thinking in terms of "perform technique A when he throws punch B" then you are nowhere really.

Whether the principles upon which wing chun is based are good ones is a different question. In some cases, or if poorly applied, then you can run into big problems.

The whole thinking in terms of doing A when he does B is really a strawman argument because while there is some of that in all martial arts including wing chun it is just a way of helping beginners practice. No one can think that way no matter what your martial art.

Youknowwho explains it very well. I learned that technique goes hand in hand with concept.

It is never about who has the better concepts but are you better at performing yours better than the other guy.

JPinAZ

06-02-2013, 03:25 PM

Concepts are useless if they cannot be expressed physically so technique is an absolute necessity. You could say no technique means no concept.

There is a very wide range in levels of performance in people using their wing chun so I do not think it is a matter of either having or not having wing chun but how well we perform with our wing chun.

No one said technique isn't necessary. I'm starting to wonder if you aren't just arguing to argue now..

The Wing Chun system IS the concept/principle. The techniques are just a by-product. You can 'use' techiques without adhering to any strategy, principle, etc, but that doesn't mean you are still 'using WC' either just because you used a tan sau. And I think this is something YKW sometimes misses

Without even the first concepts of centerline or gate theory, wing chun can't to exist. You can pak, bong, lap, etc all day long, but if you don't understand ideas like gate theory, CL, 2-line offense/defense, loi lau hoi sung, facing, positiong, etc, you're just 'doing techniques', which IMO has little to do with what WC is really about.

tc101

06-02-2013, 03:44 PM

No one said technique isn't necessary. I'm starting to wonder if you aren't just arguing to argue now..

The Wing Chun system IS the concept/principle. The techniques are just a by-product. You can 'use' techiques without adhering to any strategy, principle, etc, but that doesn't mean you are still 'using WC' either just because you used a tan sau.

I am not arguing to argue since I am not arguing at all. I am not trying to convince you of anything just sharing a different point of view.

I guess this all depends on how you define concept/principle. For me wing chun is a way of fighting just like boxing is a way of fighting its just they are just different ways.

I do not see technique as byproduct of concepts. As I learned and continue to understand it the concepts are aids in applying the techniques.

There are strategic, tactical and technical principles or concepts as I learned wing chun.

Without even the first concepts of centerline or gate theory, wing chun can't to exist. You can pak, bong, lap, etc all day long, but if you don't understand ideas like gate theory, CL, 2-line offense/defense, loi lau hoi sung, facing, positiong, etc, you're just 'doing techniques', which IMO has little to do with what WC is really about.

Wing chun is about beating the other guy. If someone doesn't share your ideas or concepts but can beat you does it console you that you know what it is really about?

JPinAZ

06-02-2013, 06:13 PM

Really no point in continuing this discussion, you're all over the place now.

Thanks though!

Yoshiyahu

06-05-2013, 08:30 AM

Please post a video of someone doing the same technique with proper centerline...or make one yourself~~!~

No offense, but who cares what technique he's using? Taan, pak, biu, doesn't matter - it's concepts/principles that matter with WC application.
That said, his WC centerline is non-existent IMO. No WC Centerline - No WC. End of story :)

JPinAZ

06-06-2013, 08:42 AM

Please post a video of someone doing the same technique with proper centerline...or make one yourself~~!~

The issue is, you keep thinking about 'technique' and totally missing the point, when I thought I was more than clear that I'm talking about WC system (principle/concept). How do you 'film' a concept?

To give you the chance to prove this is in good faith, you first share a video of just a little of the 1,000's of hours you put in sparring like you claim, and then I'll put one up showing how to make this 'technique' work with proper understanding of WC principles. Fair trade yeah?

Ali. R

06-06-2013, 09:43 AM

That said, his WC centerline is non-existent IMO. No WC Centerline - No WC. End of story :)

There is a “centerline” within that attack; it works as a pendulum from the square and to the vertex of his triangle. It doesn’t matter how one defends as long if he/she faces that attack while having the proper defensive and offensive lines under control.

While in this case the “centerline” could be hard for most to see by him using a ‘Scalene Triangle’, rather than using the common ‘Equilateral’ approach to take a more softer and subtle route, which also makes his opponent reach a lot more to find his target.

JPinAZ

06-06-2013, 12:16 PM

There is a “centerline” within that attack; it works as a pendulum from the square and to the vertex of his triangle. It doesn’t matter how one defends as long if he/she faces that attack while having the proper defensive and offensive lines under control.

While in this case the “centerline” could be hard for most to see by him using a ‘Scalene Triangle’, rather than using the common ‘Equilateral’ approach to take a more softer and subtle route, which also makes his opponent reach a lot more to find his target.

I wasn't talking about 'a' centerline, I was talking about WC centerline for facing and engagement. So it really depends on how one defines 'centerline', and it's clear our ideas differ.

I think I see what you are saying here, and it makes sens to a point. But to me, it sounds like you are just talking about the defend's own one-line/centerline?
But IMO, if you leave the original A-->B centerline by choice without even having first made contact to see if you even needed to move (as he did in the clip), then you are violating the most basic of WC principles of centerline for engagement, along with WC ideas of economy of motion & maximum efficiency. Not to mention giving up space, as well as walking right into the attacker's other hand. And it's easy to see in this clip that he's doing both.

As a recap, I gave my description of HFY's second layer of centerline, the A-->B centerline for facing & engagement, on post #33 of this thread. (the first would be that of self centerline, which is about your own body/spine alignment and proper gravity & weight distribution of the self)

And even in the post you replied to, the whole part you left out also gives my view on this: "Sounds like you’re saying he's disregarding even the most basic of WC centerline principles by stepping/running away from the attack before he's even made contact or attempted to engage it on the centerline. "

This said, does he really have any idea of 'centerline' if he's moving prior to engagement?
And, all centerline disagreements aside, wouldn't you say what is shown in the clip disregards ideas of maximum efficiency & economy of motion? I sak, becase to me, it just looks like someone using technique and speed (attributes) alone to deal with the attack.

tc101

06-06-2013, 12:24 PM

I sak, becase to me, it just looks like someone using technique and speed (attributes) alone to deal with the attack.

Let me assume this is true. My question is what does that matter? If your opponent can beat you with technique and speed how can you tell him he' wrong?

JPinAZ

06-06-2013, 12:41 PM

Let me assume this is true. My question is what does that matter? If your opponent can beat you with technique and speed how can you tell him he' wrong?

No offense, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about WC principle and ideas. While attributes and proper technique are surely important, I hope we can all agree WC is a little more than that. And if you assume what I say is true, the answer to why it matters should have been simple: Because we are WC pracitioners.

Anyway, if you ignore ideas of centerline, gate theory, economy of motion, etc, in favor of speed and flashy moves, are you really even doing WC at all? Just because you bust out a tan sau doesn't mean its WC. ;) And sure, plenty of non-WC people win fights all the time. But since this is a WC thread in the WC forum section, I just assumed we were all discussing WC. :)

Ali. R

06-06-2013, 01:14 PM

I wasn't talking about 'a' centerline, I was talking about WC centerline for facing and engagement. So it really depends on how one defines 'centerline', and it's clear our ideas differ.

I was speaking about the same thing.

While I see what you are saying here, and it makes sense - to a point, IMO if you leave the original A-->B centerline by choice without even having first made contact to see if you even needed to move, then you are violating the most basic of WC principles of centerline, along with WC ideas of economy of motion & maximum efficiency. Not to mention giving up space, as well as walking right into the attacker's other hand. And it's easy to see in this clip that he's doing both.

There is no violating of principles whatsoever dealing with the centerline. A good practitioner will use mobility via eye sensitivity to keep and have better positioning and the space that one gives up (in this case) will only bring your opponent closer to you, while not dealing with his center of mass.

And even in the post you replied to, the whole part you left out also gives my view on this: "Sounds like you’re saying he's disregarding even the most basic of WC centerline principles by stepping/running away from the attack before he's even made contact or attempted to engage it on the centerline. "

He didn’t run away from the attack, but he’d step into it; like using ‘som got mah’ in reverse (female triangle). and not away or back.

This said, does he really have any idea of 'centerline' if he's moving prior to engagement? And, all centerline disagreements aside, wouldn't you say what is shown in the clip disregards ideas of maximum efficiency & economy of motion?

He is fighting off the square of his triangle which promotes the idea of inside fighting without the clashing of the limbs. The centerline will always been there no matter if one choose to work the vertex/vertices or not. And when one makes bridge contact he/she will judge when it’s time to use his/her centerline for offensive or defensive proposes.

Bridge contact can clearly be made well after your opponent’s intent, and if you have the better eye sensitivity and positioning, then you will have the best timing and therefore would land first, taking away that concept would be like attending a ‘Fiesta’ while putting strychnine in the guacamole.

JPinAZ

06-06-2013, 01:32 PM

Unfortunatley, we clearly have 2 very different views/understanding of WC principle, centerline and overall application to continue discussion where we agree on much of anything. (Which is the whole reason for my other 'argument thread' in the first place: "Why are there so many different takes on what should be common knowledge" :))

Example: You feel there is no centerline violation with moving prior to any engagement, and I'd say that's true only in certain instances where there isn't proper facing to begin with - but not in this case. So you are not talking about the same centerline I am ;)

IMO, the whole problem with basing a discussion on this clip is the clip itself - yes, it's only a demo, but it's a horrible punch with no follow up punch intention from the attacker for the 'defender' to even worry about. So really, anything pretty much 'works', and WC principles can be violated easily. Which sparks comments like 'well if it works, who cares how you do it'. Good point now that I think about it..

Ali. R

06-06-2013, 02:28 PM

I truly understand, your talking about “Jing Meen” and “Chui Ying”, taking the attack head on while using your centerline (Sil Lum Tao).

I’m taking about “Jau Wai” and “Jau Ma” while changing the line of attack by moving your stance (chum Kli & Sil Lum Tao) to gain “Wai ji” for the better position and through “Lin Siu Dai Da” (economy of motion) to have “Fat Do” for good energy or power within one techniques, rather than using “Ga Chok”, while clashing or springing off your opponent's structure.

I'm taking my centerline down a different but well known path by using it as a “pendulum” my centerline is in use and very much available at all times, but I’m using it within a concept that is not heard of by most people (another level).

Other than that, I guess we can move on.

Take care,

Ali. R

06-06-2013, 02:57 PM

Didn’t mean to use the words “another level”, so let’s say a form of development.

Take care,

tc101

06-06-2013, 04:00 PM

No offense, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about WC principle and ideas. While attributes and proper technique are surely important, I hope we can all agree WC is a little more than that.

No offense taken. Yes, I agree wing chun is more than that.

And if you assume what I say is true, the answer to why it matters should have been simple: Because we are WC pracitioners.

I don't think that follows and is why I asked the question.

Anyway, if you ignore ideas of centerline, gate theory, economy of motion, etc, in favor of speed and flashy moves, are you really even doing WC at all? Just because you bust out a tan sau doesn't mean its WC. ;) And sure, plenty of non-WC people win fights all the time. But since this is a WC thread in the WC forum section, I just assumed we were all discussing WC. :)

Let me tell you what I hear you saying. What I hear is you saying is that according to you and I emphasize you there are these wing chun ideas that you hold to and that is your definition of wing chun and is what is right and others who may have different ideas or interpret them differently are see times when you can even ignore them are wrong. I don't think this view holds up to logical analysis.

Tan sau is a wing chun technique just like a jab is a boxing technique. So if I use a jab am I doing boxing? Instead of asking it that way instead ask the question am I using a boxing technique? I would say if I use a tan sau then I am using a wing chun technique.

If a person is using their wing chun techniques successfully how can you say that they are wrong? If they have good speed and want to rely on that then this is their personal chloice and their personal style. Arts must adapt to the individual and not the other way round.

I learned that the ideas or concepts or principles like some of those things you mentioned are to help you apply your wing chun techniques successfully but they are not constraints or restrictions.

Yes non wing chun people win fights all the time but they don't do that using wing chun techniques thus they are not using wing chun.

guy b.

06-06-2013, 05:02 PM

Tan sau is a wing chun technique just like a jab is a boxing technique. So if I use a jab am I doing boxing? Instead of asking it that way instead ask the question am I using a boxing technique? I would say if I use a tan sau then I am using a wing chun technique.

If you throw a jab without the understanding of boxing principles that make it work then no it is not a boxing technique. It is just a punch. Same with the superficial techniques of wing chun. Without the principles they are just shapes.

If a person is using their wing chun techniques successfully how can you say that they are wrong? If they have good speed and want to rely on that then this is their personal chloice and their personal style. Arts must adapt to the individual and not the other way round.

Everyone is free to do whatever they like. They are free to do their ****ty wing chun and I am free to say it is a pile of crap

I learned that the ideas or concepts or principles like some of those things you mentioned are to help you apply your wing chun techniques successfully but they are not constraints or restrictions.

A completely arse backwards understanding of, well, anything created by humans really. You can't just "apply techniques" if you don't know how and why to apply them. Well you can, but it will not be wing chun. It will just be a fool flailing their arms around.

guy b.

06-06-2013, 05:08 PM

Imagine if the army just gave guys guns and told them to get on with it, maybe showing them a few action movies for ideas, but missing out all the boring bits about strategy and the principles of warfare.

Imagine if the engineers responsible for building the bridge your train was about to go over just put it together using whatever was lying around without first understanding the principles of engineering.

Imagine if the surgeon performing your operation was self taught instead of being grounded in the principles and tradition of western medicine.

Lol

JPinAZ

06-06-2013, 05:20 PM

No offense taken. Yes, I agree wing chun is more than that.

cool!

Let me tell you what I hear you saying. What I hear is you saying is that according to you and I emphasize you there are these wing chun ideas that you hold to and that is your definition of wing chun and is what is right and others who may have different ideas or interpret them differently are see times when you can even ignore them are wrong. I don't think this view holds up to logical analysis.

No, I am not saying I'm right/you (or anyone else) is wrong. I'm just giving my understanding based on my own experience and views of WC (primarily, HFY WC, but I've also trained Ip Man WC in the past).

What I AM saying though is that if something violates the principles/theroy of WC as I understand it, then yeah, that is moving away from WC's ideas of maximum efficiency, economy of motion, etc. But, I always make an effort to back up my views with relative WC theory to support what I'm saying. Whether someone sees my views as right/wrong, at least I am doing more than some people on here that just say "you're wrong, I'm right" or saying "I prefer this technique because it's cool". Know what I mean?

Tan sau is a wing chun technique just like a jab is a boxing technique. So if I use a jab am I doing boxing? Instead of asking it that way instead ask the question am I using a boxing technique? I would say if I use a tan sau then I am using a wing chun technique.

Great question! I don't know what you're doing if you use a jab because jab isn't a technique that belongs to any one art. But, I might ask:
Was the jab the most efficeint & effective technique to use at that time?
Did it violate WC structure & leverage ideas?
Did it violate centerline principles or 2-line offense/defense concepts because you lose facing resulting in a long/short reach problem for both hands? (because most jabs do)
If so, then I'd say it's moving away from WC towards something else. I would give the similar answer for taan sau, or any other technique. And that's exacly my point - it's not the technique that demonstrates whether you are 'doing WC or not', it's the principles that support them that does.

Techniques are just the shapes, and I try not to let my students get too caught up in those labels much when I teach. There are many times I teach entire classes where the only technique I talk about during a drill is by saying "as attacker, you can either throw a striaght punch or a round punch", and then for the WC 'defence' I show them various ways to best occupy space using strong structure w/proper fwd energy with proper centerline or gate theory focus to defend themselves. I could calll it a Biu sau, Taan sau, Tiu Sau, whatever. But if I say 'use a biu sau', they will only be focussing on the technique and forget or ignore the more important stuff I just mentioned that makes the taan 'work'. :)

If a person is using their wing chun techniques successfully how can you say that they are wrong? If they have good speed and want to rely on that then this is their personal chloice and their personal style. Arts must adapt to the individual and not the other way round.

I learned that the ideas or concepts or principles like some of those things you mentioned are to help you apply your wing chun techniques successfully but they are not constraints or restrictions.

Yes non wing chun people win fights all the time but they don't do that using wing chun techniques thus they are not using wing chun.

Again, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on right/wrong. I typically wouldn't say anyone "wrong", everyone has their own veiws based on theri own experience and understanding. I only try to share my view based on my understanding of WC science behind what drives the proper technique. If someone applis their techniques successfully, I might ask them what caused them to be successful? Was it just their lucky day? (and luck always plays a part of course) Or was there something more driving those techniques other than just speed and luck?

Now, if someone focuses on just technique and speed and can still defend themself, who am I to argue? If it worksgreat. I see all sorts of things work that aren't 'wc'. boxers are great figthers in their own right, yet they aren't WC fighters. I wouldn't say they are 'wrong'! But then, I don't categorize things as being WC techniques, or boxing techniques anyway, so the question is a bit odd to me (no offence meant!!) ;)

tc101

06-07-2013, 05:10 AM

If you throw a jab without the understanding of boxing principles that make it work then no it is not a boxing technique. It is just a punch. Same with the superficial techniques of wing chun. Without the principles they are just shapes.

These are not shapes they are you doing something and in the case of the jab you are punching in a certain way. I can show an absolute beginner how to and I stress how to throw a jab and they can then practice doing it before they ever get fed any principles. This is how beginner boxers are taught btw. By your thinking the beginner boxer learning the jab would not be using a boxing technique.

Everyone is free to do whatever they like. They are free to do their ****ty wing chun and I am free to say it is a pile of crap

Yes and they are free to beat you using their pile of crap lol.

Do you ever notice how most of these discussions follow a similar route. It is all about whose ideas are right or best or most true to the original or whatever and how my idea is right and everyone else is wrong.

Here is something to think about. If someone with the wrong idea so someone doing a pile of crap or someone not even using wing chun as some people say when you are not using their ideas beats you, does that refute your idea? I would bet you'd say it didn't. Then why could they beat your superior idea? The answer is the fight is not determined by whose idea is best and let me say I don't think there is such an animal anyway but the fight is determined by who best can perform their idea. It is your personal level of performance that matters not your idea. It is not much comfort to get beaten up but know in your heart your idea was best.

A completely arse backwards understanding of, well, anything created by humans really. You can't just "apply techniques" if you don't know how and why to apply them. Well you can, but it will not be wing chun. It will just be a fool flailing their arms around.

People learn techniques to do things all the time in everything. Concepts help them apply or use their technique.

guy b.

06-07-2013, 05:32 AM

These are not shapes they are you doing something and in the case of the jab you are punching in a certain way. I can show an absolute beginner how to and I stress how to throw a jab and they can then practice doing it before they ever get fed any principles. This is how beginner boxers are taught btw. By your thinking the beginner boxer learning the jab would not be using a boxing technique.

A beginner learning a boxing technique is not boxing because they have no conception of why they are throwing the jab, how the opponent is likely to react to it, what to do about that reaction, how to use the jab in different ways, how to follow up on the successful jab, how to recover from mistakes, and so on. They are merely throwing their arm (badly) into the space (and later the bag or pad) in front of them over and over again until they get some idea of the mechanics of throwing that arm into that space with some force. But this is just the very beginning; they then have to learn how and when to use it, i.e. they have to learn how to box.

Yes and they are free to beat you using their pile of crap lol

They are free to try, but most wing chun is done very badly and this doesn't boost the chances of success using wing chun.

Do you ever notice how most of these discussions follow a similar route. It is all about whose ideas are right or best or most true to the original or whatever and how my idea is right and everyone else is wrong.

Don't you believe that your ideas are correct? You are acting as if they mean a lot to you, while putting down the ideas of other people. Seem familiar?

Here is something to think about. If someone with the wrong idea so someone doing a pile of crap or someone not even using wing chun as some people say when you are not using their ideas beats you, does that refute your idea?

I think it would be stupid to make decisions based on a sample size of 1. Statistically, better principles lead to success more often than worse principles or no principles. This is why bjj is thought of as being useful in 1 vs 1 sports and weaponless self defense situations with no time limits while tkd (for example) is not. Wing chun's principles are very effective in certain situations, less so in others. It has a poor reputation because few people learn it properly and they often try to use it for a purpose to which it was not designed, i.e. copying the form of it without understanding the principles underlying it.

It is your personal level of performance that matters not your idea. It is not much comfort to get beaten up but know in your heart your idea was best.

Ideas are not relative. Some are better, some are worse

guy b.

06-07-2013, 05:38 AM

Ideas are not relative. Some are better, some are worse

If you believe the adage that "it isn't the principle, it's the person" would you be as happy to defend your family from attack by a lone unarmed psychopath using college wresting skills as you would be using original Gracie bjj? Imagine you could train for an equal amount of time in either art before confronting this lone psycho. Which would you choose to know the night he broke into your home intent on murder?

For any sensible person the answer is bjj.

tc101

06-07-2013, 06:10 AM

No, I am not saying I'm right/you (or anyone else) is wrong. I'm just giving my understanding based on my own experience and views of WC (primarily, HFY WC, but I've also trained Ip Man WC in the past).

I do better understand your view and I do appreciate that you take the time to explain your view and are not dismissive of someone who has a different view and that you don't resort to name calling.

What I AM saying though is that if something violates the principles/theroy of WC as I understand it, then yeah, that is moving away from WC's ideas of maximum efficiency, economy of motion, etc. But, I always make an effort to back up my views with relative WC theory to support what I'm saying. Whether someone sees my views as right/wrong, at least I am doing more than some people on here that just say "you're wrong, I'm right" or saying "I prefer this technique because it's cool". Know what I mean?

I think it is fine to have ideals to aspire to some of those you mention or like judo's maximum result for minimum effort. I am just saying that these ideals do not define our art and thta sometimes we may not follopw them. If I use more effort than necessary to perform my throw am I then not using judo?

Great question! I don't know what you're doing if you use a jab because jab isn't a technique that belongs to any one art. But, I might ask:
Was the jab the most efficeint & effective technique to use at that time?
Did it violate WC structure & leverage ideas?
Did it violate centerline principles or 2-line offense/defense concepts because you lose facing resulting in a long/short reach problem for both hands? (because most jabs do)
If so, then I'd say it's moving away from WC towards something else. I would give the similar answer for taan sau, or any other technique. And that's exacly my point - it's not the technique that demonstrates whether you are 'doing WC or not', it's the principles that support them that does.

I think some arts have adopted boxing's jab into their repetoire but it is a boxing technique. How well I use that technique depends on many things.

The whole thinking in terms of are you doing wing chun is seriously flawed. No one in boxing would ask someone trained in boxing are they doing boxing. They would not even ask the question that way. Of course they are boxing because they are using the techniques of boxing and have learned those techniques. The question is how well or effectively they are using those techniques. Various concepts can help the boxer learn how to more effectively use those techniques.

You will agree won't you that wing chun has a technical repetoire or toolbox of techniques? We can list them like tan sau pak sau bil sau or the various steps or punches or strikes or ways of moving your body and so forth. Regardless of whether our style has forms or how many forms or how we do our drills or our terminology or whatever, everyone in wing chun has pretty much the same technical repetoire. Now we may all have ideas that are either slightly to very much different on how to apply these techniques but we all have the same techniques.

Techniques are just the shapes, and I try not to let my students get too caught up in those labels much when I teach. There are many times I teach entire classes where the only technique I talk about during a drill is by saying "as attacker, you can either throw a striaght punch or a round punch", and then for the WC 'defence' I show them various ways to best occupy space using strong structure w/proper fwd energy with proper centerline or gate theory focus to defend themselves. I could calll it a Biu sau, Taan sau, Tiu Sau, whatever. But if I say 'use a biu sau', they will only be focussing on the technique and forget or ignore the more important stuff I just mentioned that makes the taan 'work'. :)

I am not familiar with this idea of shapes. The wing chun techniques that I learned are not shapes but are actions you perform to do something. In your example, your students are using wing chun techniques to do something they are not just occupying space as you call it in any way they feel like. You are showing them how to use different wing chun techniques depending on the circumstances to accomplish the same thing. In the same way a bjj instructor may show how you want to hold someone on the ground and that you will need to use various pins depending on what they are doing to accomplish this.

Again, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on right/wrong. I typically wouldn't say anyone "wrong", everyone has their own veiws based on theri own experience and understanding. I only try to share my view based on my understanding of WC science behind what drives the proper technique. If someone applis their techniques successfully, I might ask them what caused them to be successful? Was it just their lucky day? (and luck always plays a part of course) Or was there something more driving those techniques other than just speed and luck?

I am hung up on right/wrong because it seemed you were saying that if people did not follow the wing chun princciples which are of course principles that you believe to be wing chun principles and interpret a certain way then you were not doing wing chun. If I misread you I apologize.

What causes anyone to be successful consistently is practice. It seems some wing chun people are hung up in the realm of ideas believing that somehow the fight is going to depend on whose idea is better and that is never really the case. It comes down to who is better at performing their idea.

Now, if someone focuses on just technique and speed and can still defend themself, who am I to argue? If it worksgreat. I see all sorts of things work that aren't 'wc'. boxers are great figthers in their own right, yet they aren't WC fighters. I wouldn't say they are 'wrong'! But then, I don't categorize things as being WC techniques, or boxing techniques anyway, so the question is a bit odd to me (no offence meant!!) ;)

You may not categorize things in terms of technique but that is the reality. If you look at an unknown fighter you can tell immediately if he has trained in boxing by the techniques he is using. Technique is how we have trained to use our body in fighting.

tc101

06-07-2013, 06:22 AM

If you believe the adage that "it isn't the principle, it's the person" would you be as happy to defend your family from attack by a lone unarmed psychopath using college wresting skills as you would be using original Gracie bjj? Imagine you could train for an equal amount of time in either art before confronting this lone psycho. Which would you choose to know the night he broke into your home intent on murder?

For any sensible person the answer is bjj.

I said it isn't the idea it is who is better at performing their idea that wins the fight. If the wrestler and bjj person were both equally good then what would it matter?

As a leo and ex hs and college wrestler with no titles and as someone who has been doing bjj for about 6 years now my unsensible answer would be to go with the wrestling because I would not want to take the fight to the ground and if I did take it to the ground I'd want to be on top doing gnp and I don't think the lone pshycho would have much of a ground game to worry about lol.

guy b.

06-07-2013, 06:59 AM

I said it isn't the idea it is who is better at performing their idea that wins the fight. If the wrestler and bjj person were both equally good then what would it matter?

This is the same as saying "it isn't the principle, it's the person". You are claiming that all methods are equivalent when they are not. It isn't all relative.

Some methods are better, some are worse. Being great at college wrestling will not usually lead to victory in a 1 vs 1 unarmed confrontation with a person that is average at bjj because bjj is a method with principles which are very suitable for that situation, statistically speaking, whereas wresting (compared to bjj) is not. There will of course be statistical exceptions, but these don't undermine the general conclusion.

As a leo and ex hs and college wrestler with no titles and as someone who has been doing bjj for about 6 years now my unsensible answer would be to go with the wrestling because I would not want to take the fight to the ground and if I did take it to the ground I'd want to be on top doing gnp and I don't think the lone psycho would have much of a ground game to worry about lol.

Why wouldn't you want to take the fight to the ground vs an unarmed psychopath in your home? You say you have done six years of bjj but it seems you learned nothing.

JPinAZ

06-07-2013, 08:20 AM

If you throw a jab without the understanding of boxing principles that make it work then no it is not a boxing technique. It is just a punch. Same with the superficial techniques of wing chun. Without the principles they are just shapes.

Everyone is free to do whatever they like. They are free to do their ****ty wing chun and I am free to say it is a pile of crap

A completely arse backwards understanding of, well, anything created by humans really. You can't just "apply techniques" if you don't know how and why to apply them. Well you can, but it will not be wing chun. It will just be a fool flailing their arms around.

LOL - a much more to-the-point answer than I gave, but I agree with this about 99% (I'd never try to call someone's WC a pile of anything, even if it kinda smelled like it :p)

JPinAZ

06-07-2013, 08:34 AM

guy b.

06-07-2013, 08:46 AM

Bottom line is, if one really understands WC system and strives to be a principle-based fighter, the will start to realize it's not the technique that matters and in the end, there really are no techniques at all ;)

Very true, good post

JPinAZ

06-07-2013, 08:56 AM

After rereading your post, I am going to give it one more chance to discuss with you.

I am not familiar with this idea of shapes.

Exactly - you'll get no argument from me there. Whenever I've felt that way, I always looked at it as an opportunity to learn something new ;)

The wing chun techniques that I learned are not shapes but are actions you perform to do something. In your example, your students are using wing chun techniques to do something they are not just occupying space as you call it in any way they feel like. You are showing them how to use different wing chun techniques depending on the circumstances to accomplish the same thing. In the same way a bjj instructor may show how you want to hold someone on the ground and that you will need to use various pins depending on what they are doing to accomplish this.

Now you are wrong, and a bit insulting as well. Are you really trying to correct me and tell me what I'm doing after I've just said otherwise? How many of my classes have you been to?

Regardless if you comprehnd it or not, I am showing my students how NOT to get caught up in techniques and to operate via principle and science instead. I am giving them a method for defending themselves that applies in ALL situations because the principles don't change. I'm teaching them about whole-body mechanics, proper position & facing, contact points & leverage, space occupation, energy understanding, etc. Not 'use technique a against attack b' type of fighting - that's a very low level of understanding of WC, or fighting in general for that matter. In my humble opinion of course

Ali. R

06-07-2013, 10:35 AM

. Bottom line is, if one really understands WC system and strives to be a principle-based fighter, the will start to realize it's not the technique that matters and in the end, there really are no techniques at all ;)

I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to correct you but I’m sure you meant being fundamentally sound, because having strong fundamentals would be the precursor of principles (conduct/management) which develops or brings the concepts/techniques to life.

He or she that has a strong fundamental base of development will be the better fighter of the day.

Take care,

JPinAZ

06-07-2013, 03:11 PM

I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to correct you but I’m sure you meant being fundamentally sound, because having strong fundamentals would be the precursor of principles (conduct/management) which develops or brings the concepts/techniques to life.

He or she that has a strong fundamental base of development will be the better fighter of the day.

Take care,

I appreciate your view and trying to put it into words that make sense to you. But, (no offense intended) it's probably better you just speak for yourself and not me because I'm actually having a hard time following what you're saying.

I meant it the way I said it and thought it was pretty easy and straight foward the way it was. Heck, even guy b. got it, and I never thought we'd agree on anything! ;) (actually, I think him and are seeing eye-to-eye on pretty much this whole thread)

Ali. R

06-07-2013, 03:34 PM

I meant it the way I said it and thought it was pretty easy and straight foward the way it was.

“Principles” and “concepts” can change, when a ‘strong’ fundamental base dealing with whatever will always stay the same, and if you’re blessed your fundamentals’ could develop into a stronger understanding or foundation.

But without a foundation there will be no concepts or principles, just total madness.

Take care,

JPinAZ

06-07-2013, 06:49 PM

“Principles” and “concepts” can change, when a ‘strong’ fundamental base dealing with whatever will always stay the same, and if you’re blessed your fundamentals’ could develop into a stronger understanding or foundation.

But without a foundation there will be no concepts or principles, just total madness.

Take care,

Unfortunately Ali, I still have no clue what you are going on about. And, without you dfining all the you are "quoting", I would only be able to guess. If I try to use my definitions for them, it makes even less sense..

FWIW, I view principle as constants that do not change. A couple quick examples might be 2 objects cannot occupy same space at same time, or shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. Laws of nature, that sort of thing. Not something that really changes IMO.

Ali. R

06-07-2013, 07:56 PM

Conduct, people and management (principles) changes like the weather and even the way someone handles an idea. The forms, chi sao, lop sao and phoon sao are all different entities but of the same manifestation (wing chun), which all have its own principles and concepts.

And without a strong grounded foundation or fundamental base it will be terribly hard for those concepts and principles to intermingle within one entity, and no one actually trains the same or work the same principles and concepts while even being taught in the same class, and that is evident here on this forum, because my way and your way is not always the right way for others.

Again, if one doesn’t have a foundation or a strong fundamental base it will be almost impossible to house all of its associated principles.

Take care

guy b.

06-08-2013, 03:20 AM

tc101

06-08-2013, 04:29 AM

This is the same as saying "it isn't the principle, it's the person". You are claiming that all methods are equivalent when they are not. It isn't all relative.

I am not saying all methods are equivalent since different arts focus on different things like bjj and wrestling it is apples and oranges. What I have seen for myself and what makes sense to me is that within an art and that art can be boxing or bjj or wrestling or mt or wing chun there is a wide variety of individual approaches, mechanics, focuses, ways of doing things and so on. I have had the experience of two very good bjj black belts teach me two different ways of doing something with each saying what the other taught was an error and that same experience also in boxing.

As I learned it wing chun just like boxing or bjj gives you a technical, tactical and strategic repertoire and some handy concepts to help you put things together but there is no best or right way to do that and there is a lot of flexibility so that the system can be molded to the individual.

Some methods are better, some are worse. Being great at college wrestling will not usually lead to victory in a 1 vs 1 unarmed confrontation with a person that is average at bjj because bjj is a method with principles which are very suitable for that situation, statistically speaking, whereas wresting (compared to bjj) is not. There will of course be statistical exceptions, but these don't undermine the general conclusion.

Why wouldn't you want to take the fight to the ground vs an unarmed psychopath in your home? You say you have done six years of bjj but it seems you learned nothing.

As a leo I have had a lot of personal time dealing with confrontations so my opinion is based on that.

Wrestling and bjj are apples and oranges since those arts have a different technical repertoire and different objectives. In wrestling there are no subs or guard because the objective is just to take the other guy down then ride him and try to get both his shoulders on the mat for seconds.

There is a reason wrestlers once they cross train bjj and learn sub defenses and so forth tend to dominate mma.

Why is it when anyone has a different opinion than you your argument is always that they know nothing or are an idiot or fool?

tc101

06-08-2013, 05:05 AM

tc101, You can argue whatever you want about right/wrong till the cows come home (or don't come home), I've already given you my position on that and will not address it further.
And, I've already given the same view several times yet you still persist. At this point, it seems that either you are trying to be 'the most right' in the room, are desperately trying to change my views, or you are just looking to argue for argument's sake.

Example: when I said 'doing WC', there's a reason it was quotes, which you either missed or ignored completely in your reply to correct me. Sorry if you don't like my term, replace it with one you do accept or feel is more-right and move on. And no one said you can win a fight with an 'idea' and that you don't need to practice. now you're just talking silly :rolleyes:

I am not trying to be most right since as I have said on just about every thread I posted on I do not believe there is such a thing. Your idea about being a principle based fighter does not make much sense to me so through back and forth conversation I was trying to both understand it and suggest that people like me who do not share your idea are also to use your words doing wing chun.

As I have also said it is not your idea or principle basis that wins the fight it is how well you can perform your idea whatever that idea is that wins the fight. That means technique since technique is your performance. Without technique you cannot do anything regardless of how ingenious your principles.

That said, since we are discussing wing chun, the constant parallels to methods or techniques of boxing, BJJ, judo or anything else are getting pretty irrelevant IMO. Bottom line is, if one really understands WC system and strives to be a principle-based fighter, the will start to realize it's not the technique that matters and in the end, there really are no techniques at all ;)

This is I am sorry what makes absolutely no sense to me on several levels. First it implies that you understand the wings chun system and are a principle based fighter since if not then you have no real basis for saying this and are only repeating what you have been told. If you do understand the system and are principle based as you say how is it that other wing chun people without this same understanding and without your principle base can beat you? Their misunderstanding and lack of principle wing chun beats your understanding and principle based art. How can so called bad wing chun beat so called good wing chun?

Second wing chun like every other art has a technical repertoire that we all spend a lot of time practicing. Technique is the basis of every martial art. I bet if we looked at you practicing wing chun or teaching wing chun we would see wing chun technique after wing chun technique. Movement is technique.

Third if you look at how people train you will see that a huge part of training is tool sharpening from hitting mitts or bags, doing repetitive drills and so on. This tool sharpening is to make us better at performing these actions or to use the nasty word technique. Even the best fighters in the world in every art does lots and lots of this to keep their technique sharp. Have they just not gotten to the point of seeing that there is no technique at all?

Ali. R

06-08-2013, 06:09 AM

Principles are not "conduct, people and management". Apart from that, and like JPinAZ, I have no idea what you are going on about. Is there any way you can put it more clearly?

Principles, a personal or specific basis conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.

guy b.

06-08-2013, 06:27 AM

I am not saying all methods are equivalent since different arts focus on different things like bjj and wrestling it is apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges? Maybe try principles and different principles. Differences in underlying principles are what differentiates different approaches to fighting. So despite directly contradicting yourself, you are still trying to argue this ridiculous point?

What I have seen for myself and what makes sense to me is that within an art and that art can be boxing or bjj or wrestling or mt or wing chun there is a wide variety of individual approaches, mechanics, focuses, ways of doing things and so on. I have had the experience of two very good bjj black belts teach me two different ways of doing something with each saying what the other taught was an error and that same experience also in boxing.

Different ways of doing things can both be in accord with the same set of underlying principles. Bjj is a principle based martial art in that its principles are oriented towards a specific purpose. Boxing is not and is passively shaped by its rather arbitrary rules. Did either of your bjj instructors violate the principles of bjj?

As I learned it wing chun just like boxing or bjj gives you a technical, tactical and strategic repertoire and some handy concepts to help you put things together but there is no best or right way to do that and there is a lot of flexibility so that the system can be molded to the individual.

In any principle based MA there are an underlying set of basic principles which, if altered or discarded, mean that the activity no longer works in the way originally intended. Altering the underlying principles can lead to a better or worse outcome in terms of some question or problem, i.e. can be part of a process of evolution or devolution, but invariably alters the way that MA functions. I imagine that most people here are pretty happy with the wing chun principles. That is why they do wing chun

As a leo I have had a lot of personal time dealing with confrontations so my opinion is based on that.

What does your star sign have to do with anything?

Wrestling and bjj are apples and oranges since those arts have a different technical repertoire and different objectives. In wrestling there are no subs or guard because the objective is just to take the other guy down then ride him and try to get both his shoulders on the mat for seconds.

The different objectives of these art are reflected in the underlying principles by which they operate.

There is a reason wrestlers once they cross train bjj and learn sub defenses and so forth tend to dominate mma.

Already successful athletes are likely to be good at similar athletic competitions? Seriously though, consider which principles the rule set of mma is likely to be passively reinforcing.

Why is it when anyone has a different opinion than you your argument is always that they know nothing or are an idiot or fool?

When people say stupid things it is reasonable to assume they are either stupid or uninformed. This argument you are pursuing is farcical for instance, and yet you continue. I suppose another valid conclusion would be that you are arguing for the sake of argument. Not sure what to think really. I have no issue with people that have different opinions which are serious and thought through.

tc101

06-09-2013, 04:46 AM

Apples and oranges? Maybe try principles and different principles. Differences in underlying principles are what differentiates different approaches to fighting. So despite directly contradicting yourself, you are still trying to argue this ridiculous point?

No they are different arts that are concerned with doing different things. They have a different technical base so naturally as they have different techniques to do different things they will also have different guides or concepts for using their techniques.

Different ways of doing things can both be in accord with the same set of underlying principles. Bjj is a principle based martial art in that its principles are oriented towards a specific purpose. Boxing is not and is passively shaped by its rather arbitrary rules. Did either of your bjj instructors violate the principles of bjj?

What I am trying to communicate with you is that in boxing or bjj no one thinks like that. They do not ask themselves that question because they do not think like that.

Wing chun and bjj exist as martial arts. They both have strategies, tactics, techniques and concepts or principles. You and I stress you look at theses arts as being principle based. That is your and I stress your perspective. It is one way of looking at it. That is not the right and only way of looking at it. Wing chun and bjj are not a principle based art rather your perspective is principle based. It is how you look at the art not how the art is. Other people have a different perspective. The art exists independent of either of our perspectives. That is not to say any perspective is right or better and there is no way to tell since there is no concept meter we can plug into to see whose idea is more right. All we can see is performance and what matters is not your idea but how well you can perform your idea.

I do not understand why people get so attached or place such importance on their perspectives or concepts. In bjj and this I think extends to any martial art is what matters is your performance on the mat. I never hear bjj people saying so and so can own me on the mat but the poor sod just does't understand things as well as I do.

In any principle based MA there are an underlying set of basic principles which, if altered or discarded, mean that the activity no longer works in the way originally intended. Altering the underlying principles can lead to a better or worse outcome in terms of some question or problem, i.e. can be part of a process of evolution or devolution, but invariably alters the way that MA functions. I imagine that most people here are pretty happy with the wing chun principles. That is why they do wing chun

That is your perspective again and I do not see things working like that. I do not see the principles as rules we must follow but as guidelines to help us. That is not being a slave to the system. I also think trying to adhere to how the art was originally intended to be used is presumptuous since how do you know and it really does't matter since what I am trying to do is the best I can not the best someone else can.

Again though do you see it doesn't matter? We don't fight with our perspectives.

When people say stupid things it is reasonable to assume they are either stupid or uninformed. This argument you are pursuing is farcical for instance, and yet you continue. I suppose another valid conclusion would be that you are arguing for the sake of argument. Not sure what to think really. I have no issue with people that have different opinions which are serious and thought through.

Because someone does not agree with you does not make their view stupid or uninformed.

tc101

06-09-2013, 05:13 AM

To give you a better insight into my perspective on principles or concepts you could look at some articles on the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition of look at this blog which sort of summarizes it.

kenneththorman.blogspot.com/2011/03/dreyfus-model-of-skills-acquisition.html

guy b.

06-09-2013, 05:53 AM

Principles, a personal or specific basis conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.

Why have you gone in particular for definition 4 from dictionary.com? Don't you think that the way the word is being used in this discussion is better served by almost any of the other definitiones there?

In what way do you think this particular definition supports your previous assertion that "principles change like the weather and even the way someone handles an idea"?

Ali. R

06-09-2013, 07:54 AM

Why have you gone in particular for definition 4 from dictionary.com? Don't you think that the way the word is being used in this discussion is better served by almost any of the other definitiones there?

In what way do you think this particular definition supports your previous assertion that "principles change like the weather and even the way someone handles an idea"?

The principles and guidelines dealing with teaching kindergarten changes drastically when going to elementary, as well as going to jr. high, high school and college, but they all work as a strong foundation or precursor.

You can have all of the principles you want, but if they’re not truly developed than you have no fundamentals or foundation, which will make it very hard to take on any new “principles or concepts”, because you’re not 'fundamentally sound'.

Meaning, that principle would be considered as the present and fundamentals would be nothing more than experience from having a strong foundation.

Take care,

guy b.

06-09-2013, 10:05 AM

The principles and guidelines dealing with teaching kindergarten changes drastically when going to elementary, as well as going to jr. high, high school and college, but they all work as a strong foundation or precursor.

You can have all of the principles you want, but if they’re not truly developed than you have no fundamentals or foundation, which will make it very hard to take on any new “principles or concepts”, because you’re not 'fundamentally sound'.

Meaning, that principle would be considered as the present and fundamentals would be nothing more than experience from having a strong foundation.

Take care,

Ali, I don't want to be rude because I think you are genuine, but I honestly don't think you are able to have a regular discussion. Very few of your posts make logical or gramatical sense, and they don't tend to follow as responses from what has been written before. Please don't respond to me again, it is a waste of my time.

Phil Redmond

06-09-2013, 11:06 AM

I see so many "hook" defense videos by Wing Chun people that will get you hurt. I trained with Mark Breland and my kickboxing instructor, Yoel Judah,( Zab Judah's dad, so I know what a "hook" looks like). Roach even says here "..if a good hook misses the elbow lands. .." You treat a real hook as an elbow strike because a dirty boxer will miss with the punch and use the elbow. See how this hook is "similar" to the Lan Sao position. http://youtu.be/vmAFFvdGc_o

Most Wing Chun people confuse a hook with a round punch. You can't get inside a good boxer's hook. It's too tight. Now you can get inside a "round" punch.

Ali. R

06-09-2013, 11:12 AM

Ali, I don't want to be rude because I think you are genuine, but I honestly don't think you are able to have a regular discussion. Very few of your posts make logical or gramatical sense, and they don't tend to follow as responses from what has been written before. Please don't respond to me again, it is a waste of my time.

To quote me in a negative matter and say that my grammar is not on point is insulting while at the same time telling me not to respond to you because I’m not logical is a boldface lie. Why not just walk away without the insults, when I’ve done nothing of that sort. Remember, you came to me fist and if you don’t quote me I will not quote you.

You chose to attack and dismiss the source more than the content (cop out) which speaks in volumes. I don’t want to fight with you over nothing, and hundreds of people have seen our conversation but only two buddies here on this thread has a problem with what I’m writing. While ‘you’ could never point out the inconsistencies of my logic which makes nothing more than chronological sense, so why get angry when your friend did not?

Take care,

guy b.

06-09-2013, 02:57 PM

No they are different arts that are concerned with doing different things. They have a different technical base so naturally as they have different techniques to do different things they will also have different guides or concepts for using their techniques.

Different arts concerned with doing different things naturally have different sets of underlying principles. It is nonsensical to say "they have a different technical base so naturally as they have different techniques". This is a content free statement. They have different techniques because they have different underlying principles concerned with the achievement of different ends.

What I am trying to communicate with you is that in boxing or bjj no one thinks like that. They do not ask themselves that question because they do not think like that.

There certainly are people in bjj that think in terms of underlying principles. Boxing isn't a principle based martial art as previously described and so irrelevant.

Wing chun and bjj exist as martial arts. They both have strategies, tactics, techniques and concepts or principles. You and I stress you look at theses arts as being principle based. That is your and I stress your perspective. It is one way of looking at it. That is not the right and only way of looking at it.

Both wing chun and bjj were created as principle based MA. That is how they operate, intentionally. It isn't an optional way of doing wing chun or bjj. If you don't take a principle based approach then you don't ever understand them properly.

Wing chun and bjj are not a principle based art rather your perspective is principle based. It is how you look at the art not how the art is. Other people have a different perspective. The art exists independent of either of our perspectives. That is not to say any perspective is right or better and there is no way to tell since there is no concept meter we can plug into to see whose idea is more right. All we can see is performance and what matters is not your idea but how well you can perform your idea.

Both bjj and wing chun were constructed with a basis of underlying principles. All technique is in accord with these principles. Without an understanding of these principles neither of these martial arts operate properly. This isn't relative or optional. It is just a factual component of how these MA were constructed and how they operate.

I do not understand why people get so attached or place such importance on their perspectives or concepts. In bjj and this I think extends to any martial art is what matters is your performance on the mat. I never hear bjj people saying so and so can own me on the mat but the poor sod just does't understand things as well as I do.

All bjj cometitions take place under rules which enforce the underlying founding principles of bjj. When these change (as they have for judo) then the devolution of bjj will accelerate until it falls apart as a coherent whole.

That is your perspective again and I do not see things working like that. I do not see the principles as rules we must follow but as guidelines to help us. That is not being a slave to the system. I also think trying to adhere to how the art was originally intended to be used is presumptuous since how do you know and it really does't matter since what I am trying to do is the best I can not the best someone else can.

It isn't my perspective, it is just the reality of these martial arts. If you don't work within the principles then you aren't doing wing chun (or bjj). The kuen kit of wing chun are pretty obvious and easily accessible. Similarly the founding principles of bjj.

Because someone does not agree with you does not make their view stupid or uninformed.

It isn't the disagreement. It is the non-coherence of your argument and your denial of reality that makes your view stupid and/or uninformed

guy b.

06-09-2013, 03:06 PM

To quote me in a negative matter and say that my grammar is not on point is insulting while at the same time telling me not to respond to you because I’m not logical is a boldface lie. Why not just walk away without the insults, when I’ve done nothing of that sort. Remember, you came to me fist and if you don’t quote me I will not quote you.

You chose to attack and dismiss the source more than the content (cop out) which speaks in volumes. I don’t want to fight with you over nothing, and hundreds of people have seen our conversation but only two buddies here on this thread has a problem with what I’m writing. While ‘you’ could never point out the inconsistencies of my logic which makes nothing more than chronological sense, so why get angry when your friend did not?

Take care,

The content was comprehensively debunked Ali but you didn't respond to this. I'm not angry. Just lets not talk again.

Ali. R

06-09-2013, 03:49 PM

And I thank you very much for that decision (don’t talk to each other). It’s impressive on the way you debunked a narrative which was backed by a very strong premise with just these two questions.

Why have you gone in particular for definition 4 from dictionary.com? Don't you think that the way the word is being used in this discussion is better served by almost any of the other definitiones there?

In what way do you think this particular definition supports your previous assertion that "principles change like the weather and even the way someone handles an idea"?

Take care,

tc101

06-10-2013, 04:51 AM

Wayfaring

06-10-2013, 07:31 AM

One thing I see bypassed in this conversation is that we are discussing principle-based arts. Some of this discussion is a non-starter, because ALL martial arts have elements of principles. They also have techniques, or what we tend to call "shapes". The unique blend of principles and shapes give the flavor of the art.

However, in learning an art, there are different principles that govern learning different stages of the art. For example, SNT principles are different than CK principles. BT principles involve recovery, so they could be accused of violating SNT principles. You would never allow yourself to get so far out of position you need the BT elbows and space recovery. But if you do get there, you know what to do.

BJJ has different principles at different levels. White belts are about position before submission. Other principles are more pertinent to the belt level.

People are talking past each other related to principles not understanding that there are varying levels of understanding of principles, and different principles may be in play for one on a thread where others may be developing another set from another perspective.

Ali. R

06-10-2013, 02:06 PM

I see people speaking a lot on “principles” but never with a strong foundation or development , just techniques while never gaining a true ‘fundamental base’ , it seems that everyone wants the quick fix which really puts wing chun in a bad way among other arts, because no one wants to put in or promote the work that goes behind it.

anerlich

06-10-2013, 10:50 PM

I do not see the principles as rules we must follow but as guidelines to help us.

I agree with this.

Sometimes what is and isn't taught in a particular BJJ school can have nothing to do with principles.

Some Gracie schools don't teach kesa gatame / scarf hold, or regard it as inferior, for reasons more due to the perceived country of origin (Japan over Brazil - no, it doesn't make sense to me either) rather than its actual efficacy. It's true it has less pathways out than the modified scarf hold with a far side underhook, and can have a potential path to the back if you don't do it properly, but if someone good at it gets you there, there are quite a few subs from here and you can be in a lot of trouble.

guy b.

06-11-2013, 03:39 PM

Guyb you see wing chun and bjj as principle based because that is the level you are at the level of there are absolute rules and you must follow them. This is what the Dreyfus model explains among other things. This is why you look at Telles who is a upper level black belt competitor and see someone who is violating the rules as you have learned them. He does that because as an expert or master level he knows the rules just like you but now sees them differently because of his level and so they are just guidelines for him not rigid constraints which is how beginners look at the rules.

Principles in wing chun and bjj are not sequential abc rules to be followed. They are instead an overarching framework within which knowledge of the subject is accumulated by doing. They are a codification and crystallisation of tacit knowledge rather than a list of sequential instructions. They are both a shortcut and a frame. If you break the frame then you are doing something else, no matter how well you are doing it. As previously discussed the outcome can be either positive or negative in terms of certain questions and problems. Generally these types of codifications survive because they are good answers to problems that continue to be asked.

The argument of wing chun and bjj being constructed a certain way is a non starter. We do not know how or who or why wing chun developed all we have are stories to choose from.

Speak for yourself

Bjj is judo where the focus shifted to ne waza and developed from a judo fighters experiences. No one sat down and wrote out a list of principles that must be followed. As I tried to explain to you it really doesn't matter how Helio or Yip Man performed because I am not Helio or Yip. I need to make things work for me.

You are free to do your own thing if you like. This is a slow route to mastery with many dead ends.

Of course because I see things different than you I am an idiot and you the genius who knows wing chun better that someone who can beat a pro boxer or pro mma fighter and you know bjj better that top level competitors.

It is your choice to measure yourself in terms of sports competitions bounded by particular rules while rejecting the codified tacit knowledge passed from previous masters (principle based MA). Of course these sports rules frame the question being asked of your MA, and so determine the answers. I do not opt for this slow route, biased framing, and high failure rate.

As I keep telling you it really has nothing to do with your idea or what you think you know but how well or the level you can do it at. There are levels and perspectives are a reflection of your level. You just haven't seen that for yourself yet.

Do it? Do what oh master?

This isn't your troll account is it Wayfaring?

guy b.

06-11-2013, 04:06 PM

For example, SNT principles are different than CK principles. BT principles involve recovery, so they could be accused of violating SNT principles. You would never allow yourself to get so far out of position you need the BT elbows and space recovery. But if you do get there, you know what to do.

You really think the principles of CK and SNT contradict each other rather than building on each other? Your argument about BT might hold if the creators of wing chun didn't accept reality, but luckily this was not the case.

BJJ has different principles at different levels. White belts are about position before submission. Other principles are more pertinent to the belt level.

Position never becomes unimportant in bjj, but this is far prom the only principle a white belt would be aware of. Nearly all of the bjj principles are applicable from the start.

People are talking past each other related to principles not understanding that there are varying levels of understanding of principles, and different principles may be in play for one on a thread where others may be developing another set from another perspective.

Of course, it's all relative and we can all be right at the same time! Except it isn't and we can't.

tc101

06-12-2013, 04:32 AM

Principles in wing chun and bjj are not sequential abc rules to be followed. They are instead an overarching framework within which knowledge of the subject is accumulated by doing. They are a codification and crystallisation of tacit knowledge rather than a list of sequential instructions. They are both a shortcut and a frame. If you break the frame then you are doing something else, no matter how well you are doing it. As previously discussed the outcome can be either positive or negative in terms of certain questions and problems. Generally these types of codifications survive because they are good answers to problems that continue to be asked.

That is one perspective.

Speak for yourself

I am and I only speak for myself from my perspective. My point is so do you. We just have different perspectives.

You are free to do your own thing if you like. This is a slow route to mastery with many dead ends.

How do you know that? You can't. In fact the Dreyfus study proved just the opposite.

It is your choice to measure yourself in terms of sports competitions bounded by particular rules while rejecting the codified tacit knowledge passed from previous masters (principle based MA). Of course these sports rules frame the question being asked of your MA, and so determine the answers. I do not opt for this slow route, biased framing, and high failure rate.

It is not being a sport that matters it is that sports are performance based so that you are measured by your performance ability. I do think you've hit on something though. Perhaps the basis of a TCMA is the concern is as you state with passing on codified tacit knowledge from person to person whereas sport and competition based martial arts are more concerned with performance and reject knowledge that doesn't increase performance.

Do it? Do what oh master?

This isn't your troll account is it Wayfaring?

You have actually given me something to think about. I had always operated under the assumption that everyone in martial arts including wing chun had as their foremost concern performance. Perhaps this is because I come from a sport background. I now see that is not the case that some perhaps many are concerned with accumulating knowledge and not increasing skill. Thank you. This opens my eyes a bit.

Wayfaring

06-12-2013, 09:46 AM

Wayfaring

06-12-2013, 09:52 AM

You really think the principles of CK and SNT contradict each other rather than building on each other? Your argument about BT might hold if the creators of wing chun didn't accept reality, but luckily this was not the case.

Reading comprehension, troll. "are different than" not equal to "contradict". What I think can be arrived at by actually reading what I write. As opposed to whatever conversation is going on in your head.

Position never becomes unimportant in bjj, but this is far prom the only principle a white belt would be aware of. Nearly all of the bjj principles are applicable from the start.

Apparently except for Eduardo Telles principles. I forgot, what are your issues there? I think all of us on the forum are waiting for you to drop some more of your white belt knowledge about BJJ principles and how we should ignore certain black belts due to their departure from principles. I was really hoping to get your feedback on that so that I could send it on to Eduardo to help him learn how his stuff is so wrong. Who is it you train BJJ under again? They should get more credit.

guy b.

06-12-2013, 01:31 PM

It is not being a sport that matters it is that sports are performance based so that you are measured by your performance ability. I do think you've hit on something though. Perhaps the basis of a TCMA is the concern is as you state with passing on codified tacit knowledge from person to person whereas sport and competition based martial arts are more concerned with performance and reject knowledge that doesn't increase performance.

The codified tacit knowledge contained in principle based MA is passed on for a reason. That reason is not to pass on knowledge for its own sake. The reason for doing it is that it is a shortcut to proficiency and eventually mastery.

You have actually given me something to think about. I had always operated under the assumption that everyone in martial arts including wing chun had as their foremost concern performance. Perhaps this is because I come from a sport background. I now see that is not the case that some perhaps many are concerned with accumulating knowledge and not increasing skill. Thank you. This opens my eyes a bit.

Think harder

guy b.

06-12-2013, 01:40 PM

Reading comprehension, troll. "are different than" not equal to "contradict". What I think can be arrived at by actually reading what I write. As opposed to whatever conversation is going on in your head.

The same overarching principles apply to both SNT and CK, and to the whole of wing chun

Apparently except for Eduardo Telles principles. I forgot, what are your issues there? I think all of us on the forum are waiting for you to drop some more of your white belt knowledge about BJJ principles and how we should ignore certain black belts due to their departure from principles. I was really hoping to get your feedback on that so that I could send it on to Eduardo to help him learn how his stuff is so wrong. Who is it you train BJJ under again? They should get more credit.

Calm down, are you attempting another bjj citizen's arrest?

Telles definitely employs principles that are not part of the codified tacit knowledge that frames and defines the art of bjj. I don't see why this fact would seem contraversial to you.

Wayfaring

06-12-2013, 02:06 PM

The same overarching principles apply to both SNT and CK, and to the whole of wing chun

What, that your reading comprehension keeps you from understanding all of them? I would agree that it's a major contributing factor. I would go with not sparring as the main cause though.

Telles definitely employs principles that are not part of the codified tacit knowledge that frames and defines the art of bjj. I don't see why this fact would seem contraversial to you.

I understand your problem now. You are taking BJJ lessons from Urkel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Urkel

guy b.

06-12-2013, 02:14 PM

What, that your reading comprehension keeps you from understanding all of them? I would agree that it's a major contributing factor. I would go with not sparring as the main cause though.

I understand your problem now. You are taking BJJ lessons from Urkel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Urkel

This appears to be a completely content free post. Well done

tc101

06-12-2013, 02:16 PM

This appears to be a completely content free post. Well done

He has learned one of your tricks. :)

guy b.

06-12-2013, 02:24 PM

He has learned one of your tricks. :)

My posts just have content you disagree with and so you tend to try and shut it out. I guess the cognitive dissonance is painful for you

Wayfaring

06-12-2013, 02:40 PM

Telles definitely employs principles that are not part of the codified tacit knowledge that frames and defines the art of bjj. I don't see why this fact would seem contraversial to you.

And yet you won't say what these principles are and what (OMG - "codified tacit knowledge") it is that he is violating.

You just hint around at it like you are a girl and we are supposed to guess your weight. OK I'll play. 340 and you like long walks on the beach.

guy b.

06-12-2013, 02:55 PM

And yet you won't say what these principles are and what (OMG - "codified tacit knowledge") it is that he is violating.

You just hint around at it like you are a girl and we are supposed to guess your weight. OK I'll play. 340 and you like long walks on the beach.

I'm happy to answer this basic bjj question when you reveal a clip of some wing chun you like. Since I asked first and all

anerlich

06-12-2013, 03:00 PM

Telles definitely employs principles that are not part of the codified tacit knowledge that frames and defines the art of bjj.

No he does not, and that's not contraversial [sic].

guy b.

06-12-2013, 04:06 PM

No he does not, and that's not contraversial [sic].

Lol at stooping as low as a spelling mistake. Do you want me to go back and correct it?

tc101

06-12-2013, 05:42 PM

My posts just have content you disagree with and so you tend to try and shut it out. I guess the cognitive dissonance is painful for you

No I am beginning to catch onto the verbal games you play. You say things like principles of bjj but won't explain what you and I emphasize you think they are. Telles violates these principles according to you but again you cannot say what they are. When asked you try to turn the tables with another game of what you don't know or some other evasion. You say some black belts have criticized him for violating these principles you can't explain and won't name them. Your posts have no substance they are just blanket statements that you cannot provide any explanation for.

Most top level wing chun masters agree that what Phillip Bayer teaches violates the principles of wing chun. See I can do it to. I just make a silly blanket statement. I will use your verbal games to avoid providing any explanation. Want to play?

anerlich

06-12-2013, 06:21 PM

Lol at stooping as low as a spelling mistake. Do you want me to go back and correct it?

If you like. I actually want you to stop posting on the forum, since you ask.

"Stooping so low?" This is an internet forum, not church, and I don't see you setting much of an example.

anerlich

06-12-2013, 06:32 PM

My posts just have content you disagree with and so you tend to try and shut it out.

Your posts are full of uninformed assertions you can't substantiate, and there is only that whiny noise to shut out.

Ali. R

06-12-2013, 07:10 PM

Your posts are full of uninformed assertions you can't substantiate, and there is only that whiny noise to shut out.

It sounds more like ‘Gilbert Gottfried (http://youtu.be/DMPuuUhjcbA)’ to me.

Take care,

guy b.

06-14-2013, 04:07 PM

I am beginning to catch onto the verbal games you play. You say things like principles of bjj but won't explain what you and I emphasize you think they are. Telles violates these principles according to you but again you cannot say what they are. When asked you try to turn the tables with another game of what you don't know or some other evasion. You say some black belts have criticized him for violating these principles you can't explain and won't name them. Your posts have no substance they are just blanket statements that you cannot provide any explanation for.

I have an explanation ready to post and have no issue with expanding on my argument because it is correct and easily backed up by evidence. I am just waiting for Wayfaring or one of his friends and aliases to respond to back up his earlier claims (or shall we call them "silly blanket statements") made about wing chun. It is a 2 way street you see.

Most top level wing chun masters agree that what Phillip Bayer teaches violates the principles of wing chun. See I can do it to. I just make a silly blanket statement. I will use your verbal games to avoid providing any explanation. Want to play?

Why would this bother me in the slightest? I have never even met Philip Bayer, let alone trained with him. Even if I had, why would your uninformed opinion matter? Like most serious wing chun groups, Bayer doesn't appear to put the meat of his stuff in youtube clips. There is enough there to like if you know what you are looking for, but not enough to learn from or to use as a weapon against that group. Seems sensible to me considering the kind of wing chun hating weirdos that tend to stalk wing chun forums.

Wayfaring

06-14-2013, 04:50 PM

I have an explanation ready to post and have no issue with expanding on my argument because it is correct and easily backed up by evidence. I am just waiting for Wayfaring or one of his friends and aliases to respond to back up his earlier claims (or shall we call them "silly blanket statements") made about wing chun. It is a 2 way street you see.

No you don't have any such thing ready. And stop connecting yourself to me like a stalker.

guy b.

06-14-2013, 05:00 PM

No you don't have any such thing ready. And stop connecting yourself to me like a stalker.

I sure do and I would like to post it because I would enjoy educating you.

Why don't you go and talk strategy with your friends and aliases?

Wayfaring

06-15-2013, 02:07 PM

I sure do and I would like to post it because I would enjoy educating you.

Bull****....

guy b.

06-16-2013, 02:24 AM

Bull****....

I think you are too scared to find out

Wayfaring

06-16-2013, 04:40 AM

I think you are too scared to find out

You know, post up your backup story, or don't.

Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with me whether or not you choose to defend your stupid statements.

guy b.

06-16-2013, 09:58 AM

You know, post up your backup story, or don't.

Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with me whether or not you choose to defend your stupid statements.

Likewise. Your stupid statements stand undefended. You really look like an idiot dismissing the wing chun of Jerry Yeung in such an offhand way.

Wayfaring

06-17-2013, 08:03 AM

Likewise. Your stupid statements stand undefended. You really look like an idiot dismissing the wing chun of Jerry Yeung in such an offhand way.

No, not likewise. I've defended every single one of my criticisms of videos and explained where my issues with them were. I don't know who Jerry Yeung is or what you're going on about there.

You, on the other hand, we have no idea where you have trained or do train any of the arts you are criticizing. Plenty of people know my WCK background, nobody knows yours. Similar to my BJJ background. Nobody knows yours, other than with all your criticisms of an international champion black belt in BJJ, you are talking like an idiot. Rather than owning up to this, you make up some game where you won't explain yourself until I post up a clip. Similarly you refuse to answer questions about your background.

In other words I am a poster and contributor on this forum.

You are a troll.

guy b.

06-18-2013, 03:21 PM

No, not likewise. I've defended every single one of my criticisms of videos and explained where my issues with them were.

You really haven't. All you do when challenged on your claims is childishly refer to "face dancing", then refuse to show how you would do it better.

I don't know who Jerry Yeung is or what you're going on about there.

Ignorance is not a legitimate defence

You, on the other hand, we have no idea where you have trained or do train any of the arts you are criticizing.

I don't know where you have trained or if you do actually train either. I am just talking your word for it. I didn't realise "you" were a "we"

Plenty of people know my WCK background, nobody knows yours. Similar to my BJJ background. Nobody knows yours

Plenty of people know both my wing chun and bjj backgrounds. It seems that you don't. This means that we are both in the same position. Yet somehow you think I owe you something without your paying for it. This is hypocritical.

other than with all your criticisms of an international champion black belt in BJJ, you are talking like an idiot. Rather than owning up to this, you make up some game where you won't explain yourself until I post up a clip. Similarly you refuse to answer questions about your background.

Other than with all your criticisms of an internationally reknowned ving tsun practitioner and teacher, you are talking like an idiot. Rather than owning up to this, you make up some game where you won't explain yourself until I answer a list of arbitrary questions about my background. Meanwhile you refuse to post evidence supporting your outlandish claims about the ving tsun clips I posted.

In other words I am a poster and contributor on this forum.

That is a matter of opinion. I think you are a coward, a hypocrite and a troll. You reap what you sow

GlennR

06-18-2013, 03:28 PM

Plenty of people know both my wing chun and bjj backgrounds. It seems that you don't. This means that we are both in the same position. Yet somehow you think I owe you something without your paying for it. This is hypocritical.

Well i don't and i posted you a reasonably detailed summary of my background.

And FWIW, i know what most of the guys on here have done, are doing and so forth as they seem more than happy to share.

Whats your (apparent) issue with letting people know your background?

JPinAZ

06-18-2013, 03:36 PM

I don't know where you have trained or if you do actually train either. I am just talking your word for it. I didn't realise "you" were a "we"

While I am trying to stay out of your's and wayfarings 'lovers spat' :p, I will say I can be included in that 'we' as can just about anyone else on this forum in regards to any of your training background.= since AFAIK you've never given any of it here.

That said, and while wayfaring doesn't need anyone to defend him, I can vouch for some of Wayfaring's early WC training having been there myself, and it is no secret where and with whom he trains with nowadays, as well as having multiple pictures on social media to back it up. And knowing him personally, he's not a liar by any means.

Plenty of people know both my wing chun and bjj backgrounds. It seems that you don't. This means that we are both in the same position. Yet somehow you think I owe you something without your paying for it. This is hypocritical.

Add me to the list of those that don't. I find it rather strange that you view your personal training infromation as something someone has to 'pay for' :confused:
Unless you have something to hide, it shouldn't be a problem to at least list who your WC sifu is and how long you've been training... (not that it is required to post here, but hey, since you brought it up...)

anerlich

06-18-2013, 04:05 PM

Plenty of people know both my wing chun and bjj backgrounds.

And the forum is thick with their posts all rushing to your defence. :p

My background is on my profile, and my ranks in WC and BJJ should be easy to verify from the links in my .sig.

Wayfaring

06-19-2013, 08:47 AM

And the forum is thick with their posts all rushing to your defence. :p

LOL. yeah everybody has their own battles and don't need any of mine.

guy b.

06-20-2013, 10:11 AM

Whats your (apparent) issue with letting people know your background?

It is difficult to be friendly when being constantly attacked. Rather than discussing technical issues from the point of view of the wing chun in the clips I posted, people jumped in with childish insults instead. I have also been bombarded with questions about identity and training history from the forum policemen which makes me even less inclined to post that information here. I am just returning what I am given.

guy b.

06-20-2013, 10:15 AM

And the forum is thick with their posts all rushing to your defence. :p

You are confused. This forum is not the world of wing chun. There are about 12 people posting here regularly, none of whom I know personally. Only about 3 of these people have made it their mission to attack me. I have no problem with the others and I don't think they have any particular problem with me.

Wayfaring

06-20-2013, 10:42 AM

Rather than discussing technical issues from the point of view of the wing chun in the clips I posted, people jumped in with childish insults instead.

No. You did not want to engage in discussing technical issues. You posted up a bunch of clips of compliant chi sau, and indicated how skilled they looked. When challenged on the applicability of compliant chi sau in a real live environment, you refused to engage. Sure I made fun of one of the most outlandish of videos presented, where the sifu is grasping the face of his student and shuffling across the floor. Why did I do this? Because you have to be pretty deluded to think that was an example of real fighting skill. And to post up a video like that the sifu would have to have a pretty large ego as well, as he obviously thinks it represents real fighting skill. People with delusions like that are dangerous, as that attitude gets passed to students and they get themselves in trouble in self-defense situations thinking they are invincible.

And apparently I struck a nerve. Because since then we've experienced criticism of BJJ, apparently just because I train it. And not intelligent criticism, but stupid claims about international champion BJJ black belts. And you've stalked me all over these forums saying I'm a coward and other such namecalling and inventing stupid games of who needs to post up what first. It's pretty sad.

I have also been bombarded with questions about identity and training history from the forum policemen which makes me even less inclined to post that information here. I am just returning what I am given.

If you were honest and open about these things you wouldn't have the same trouble. Of course if you are criticizing a known BJJ international competitor black belt for not staying true to the principles of their art someone is going to want to know if you have actually trained BJJ, and have any kind of a point, or are just a moron trying to get attention. Your behavior kind of leads to a conclusion there.

From my perspective, you can either develop a little thicker skin discussing technique and be honest about your training background or perhaps find a forum more suited to your viewpoint of unicorns and sunshine while training compliant chi sau turning you into a lethal weapon.

Some things aren't for everyone. Nothing wrong with that.

guy b.

06-20-2013, 11:11 AM

You did not want to engage in discussing technical issues. You posted up a bunch of clips of compliant chi sau, and indicated how skilled they looked. When challenged on the applicability of compliant chi sau in a real live environment, you refused to engage.

All wing chun has the chi sau drill. Examples of chi sau and gor sau that I posted were good examples of those kinds of training, in my opinion. If you are worried about the applicability of using chi sau in a fight then you are confused about the purpose of the drill. I am happy to talk about any criticisms you have of the way the people in the clips are doing the drill but there is no point whatsoever in discussing how it might be used in a fight. All you were interested in was a lazy criticism where you could cheer MMA and criticise wing chun based upon a category error.

Sure I made fun of one of the most outlandish of videos presented, where the sifu is grasping the face of his student and shuffling across the floor. Why did I do this? Because you have to be pretty deluded to think that was an example of real fighting skill.

Again you are confused. Chi sau is drill with a specific purpose. When contact is made to the face it is showing something and waiting for a response.

And to post up a video like that the sifu would have to have a pretty large ego as well, as he obviously thinks it represents real fighting skill.

I think you will find that he doesn't. It seems to be you that believes chi sau represents real fighting skill.

People with delusions like that are dangerous, as that attitude gets passed to students and they get themselves in trouble in self-defense situations thinking they are invincible.

Speak for yourself.

Because since then we've experienced criticism of BJJ, apparently just because I train it. And not intelligent criticism, but stupid claims about international champion BJJ black belts.

As a principle based martial art bjj has many interesting parallels with wing chun. My criticisms of bjj are logical and coherent. Your reactions are not.

If you were honest and open about these things you wouldn't have the same trouble.

I have no idea who you are either friend.

Of course if you are criticizing a known BJJ international competitor black belt for not staying true to the principles of their art someone is going to want to know if you have actually trained BJJ, and have any kind of a point, or are just a moron trying to get attention.

One could say exactly the same things about your criticisms of the wing chun teacher in the clips, but you weren't even making a coherent argument and were instead just having a cry about some clips of chi and gor sau not being full contact which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wing chun.

Wayfaring

06-20-2013, 11:24 AM

All wing chun has the chi sau drill. Examples of chi sau and gor sau that I posted were good examples of those kinds of training, in my opinion.

And I disagree, in my opinion.

If you are worried about the applicability of using chi sau in a fight then you are confused about the purpose of the drill. I am happy to talk about any criticisms you have of the way the people in the clips are doing the drill but there is no point whatsoever in discussing how it might be used in a fight. All you were interested in was a lazy criticism where you could cheer MMA and criticise wing chun based upon a category error.

If the drill is not developing things useful in a fight then it's not me that's confused about it's purpose.

Chi sau has evolved or devolved into a catch-all of cr@pt@stic technique. It's easier to do than either gor sau or sparring depending on your definitions of those terms. So people do that all the time. It has become an end in itself.

Chi sau is both the heart of wing chun and why it is dying currently.

Again you are confused. Chi sau is drill with a specific purpose. When contact is made to the face it is showing something and waiting for a response.

Waiting for a response is conditioning the wrong things.

I think you will find that he doesn't. It seems to be you that believes chi sau represents real fighting skill.

Don't know him but would listen to his reasoning on that clip. I would say the same thing to his face about the clip as I say here. That clip shows a lot of ego to me. If you are just developing attributes then what's the need to face dance out the door?

As a principle based martial art bjj has many interesting parallels with wing chun. My criticisms of bjj are logical and coherent. Your reactions are not.

I share interest in parallels between wck and bjj. I wouldn't know regarding your criticisms, as you refuse to post up any logical or coherent explanation if you have them. I'm still stuck in your stupid game where you call me all sorts of names and place demands before you will share your criticisms.

One could say exactly the same things about your criticisms of the wing chun teacher in the clips, but you weren't even making a coherent argument and were instead just having a cry about some clips of chi and gor sau not being full contact which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of wing chun.

My complaint is not that drills are not full contact sparring. My complaint is when drills are substituted for sparring because they are easier, thus degrading the quality of the art, all while the art is at its most crucial juncture where realistic training is becoming more and more popular with the advent of MMA, BJJ, and realistic sport competitions.

guy b.

06-20-2013, 12:49 PM

And I disagree, in my opinion

If you don't like clips of chi sau then criticise them in terms of chi sau. There is no point in criticising them in terms of fighting as you have done.

If the drill is not developing things useful in a fight then it's not me that's confused about it's purpose.

You were not talking about the applicability to fighting of things developed via chi sau. You were instead criticising "the applicability of compliant chi sau in a real live environment". You were criticising the actual chi sau in terms of its fighting applicability which just shows confusion or dishonesty.

Chi sau has evolved or devolved into a catch-all of cr@pt@stic technique. It's easier to do than either gor sau or sparring depending on your definitions of those terms. So people do that all the time. It has become an end in itself.

Speak for yourself

Chi sau is both the heart of wing chun and why it is dying currently.

Again, speak for yourself

Waiting for a response is conditioning the wrong things.

I don't have much confidence in your understanding of chi sau to be honest

That clip shows a lot of ego to me. If you are just developing attributes then what's the need to face dance out the door?

Which clip is this in particular?

I share interest in parallels between wck and bjj. I wouldn't know regarding your criticisms, as you refuse to post up any logical or coherent explanation if you have them. I'm still stuck in your stupid game where you call me all sorts of names and place demands before you will share your criticisms.

You love to copy don't you?

My argument regarding bjj is that Telles does not adhere to the principles of bjj. This is a pretty straight forward and logical argument.

My complaint is not that drills are not full contact sparring. My complaint is when drills are substituted for sparring because they are easier, thus degrading the quality of the art

Speak for yourself

anerlich

06-20-2013, 02:59 PM

You are confused.

No I'm not.

Are you Kevin? He keeps saying stuff like that.

GlennR

06-20-2013, 03:11 PM

It is difficult to be friendly when being constantly attacked. Rather than discussing technical issues from the point of view of the wing chun in the clips I posted, people jumped in with childish insults instead. I have also been bombarded with questions about identity and training history from the forum policemen which makes me even less inclined to post that information here. I am just returning what I am given.

Whats being friendly got to do with discussing your back ground?

You are on a forum here where, like any other forum, open debate is par for the course.

There's people on here that dont like me or agree with me, but i put my back ground up, its common courtesy.

So at this point you comments and view points are baseless to me. I prefer to exchange ideas with people that have shared their experience's and back ground with me and someone that sits there clutching the security blanket of anonymity is , to put it mildly, just being bloody rude.

So why dont you got to forums anonymous where youll fit in just fine otherwise youre just trolling...... and not even funny at that!

anerlich

06-20-2013, 03:20 PM

forum policemen

Jeez, I wish. There'd be some BIG changes around here, let me tell you! :p

Wayfaring

06-20-2013, 03:24 PM

My argument regarding bjj is that Telles does not adhere to the principles of bjj. This is a pretty straight forward and logical argument.

Which principles were those?

JPinAZ

06-20-2013, 04:12 PM

It is difficult to be friendly when being constantly attacked. Rather than discussing technical issues from the point of view of the wing chun in the clips I posted, people jumped in with childish insults instead. I have also been bombarded with questions about identity and training history from the forum policemen which makes me even less inclined to post that information here. I am just returning what I am given.

All I see you doing is playing the victim here and pushing the blame on everyone else for your refusal to answer a simple question and move on. The excuses you come up with are rediculous for such a simple question. Unless you have something to hide, there is no reason to be afraid to list what or with whom you've trained with (unless you haven't really done any training and are trolling..)

To make it easier on you, I'll go first! I've been practicing WC for over 10 years. The first few years were a mix bag of Yip Man WC, Chi Sim Weng Chun and then HFY. In 2003 I started focusing more on just HFY WC and in 2005 I decided to focus my studies soley on HFY directly under GM Garret Gee in the long-distance instructor program.
I did some boxing prior to that back when I lived in the detroit suburbs.

Yeah, I see what you mean, that was tough :rolleyes:

GlennR

06-20-2013, 04:22 PM

All I see you doing is playing the victim here and pushing the blame on everyone else for your refusal to answer a simple question and move on. The excuses you come up with are rediculous for such a simple question. Unless you have something to hide, there is no reason to be afraid to list what or with whom you've trained with (unless you haven't really done any training and are trolling..)

To make it easier on you, I'll go first! I've been practicing WC for over 10 years. The first few years were a mix bag of Yip Man WC, Chi Sim Weng Chun and then HFY. In 2003 I started focusing more on just HFY WC and in 2005 I decided to focus my studies soley on HFY directly under GM Garret Gee in the long-distance instructor program.
I did some boxing prior to that back when I lived in the detroit suburbs.

Yeah, I see what you mean, that was tough :rolleyes:

First?!?!

Id already exposed my shady past! ;)

JPinAZ

06-20-2013, 04:25 PM

First?!?!

Id already exposed my shady past! ;)

haha, I just meant first between guy b and I. Oh heck, it's probably first and last since he obviously isn't going to share anything.

GlennR

06-20-2013, 04:26 PM

haha, I just meant first between guy b and I. Oh heck, it's probably first and last since he obviously isn't going to share anything.

Ive a bit of a theory to be honest.......... im thinking guy.b and bogdan are the same person

Graham H

06-21-2013, 12:14 AM

Ive a bit of a theory to be honest.......... im thinking guy.b and bogdan are the same person

The theory has been proven at last. Well done Glenn!

Guy and Bogdan are the same person so are you and Anerlich. BPWT and Poulperdieux are the same. Myself and Kev OBVIOUSLY the same. Who else? Paddington and thedreamer7??? LoneTiger and Yip Man himself? Definately the same ghost.....I mean guy. :)

Man this forum gets weirder and weirder as time goes on. :eek:

I got called strange earlier by somebody that has never met me and is probably one of the most shot away donuts on this forum. Funny as!

BTW it wasn't Poul. That guy is fooked!

GlennR

06-21-2013, 12:25 AM

The theory has been proven at last. Well done Glenn!

Guy and Bogdan are the same person so are you and Anerlich. BPWT and Poulperdieux are the same. Myself and Kev OBVIOUSLY the same. Who else? Paddington and thedreamer7??? LoneTiger and Yip Man himself? Definately the same ghost.....I mean guy. :)

Man this forum gets weirder and weirder as time goes on. :eek:

I got called strange earlier by somebody that has never met me and is probably one of the most shot away donuts on this forum. Funny as!

BTW it wasn't Poul. That guy is fooked!

Evening Graham

Actually it was a joke, probably should have put one of those smiley face things after it.

And i disagree with it getting weirder.......... thats just not possible!

BPWT

06-21-2013, 12:43 AM

The theory has been proven at last. Well done Glenn! Guy and Bogdan are the same person so are you and Anerlich. BPWT and Poulperdieux are the same. Myself and Kev OBVIOUSLY the same. Who else? Paddington and thedreamer7??? LoneTiger and Yip Man himself? Definately the same ghost.....I mean guy. :)

Man this forum gets weirder and weirder as time goes on. :eek:

I got called strange earlier by somebody that has never met me and is probably one of the most shot away donuts on this forum. Funny as!

BTW it wasn't Poul. That guy is fooked!

To be fair, I said you were 'strange' and 'hiding behind insults', and I also said that you sound like you have a few issues and that I hope you can work through them :D

Not that any of this will stop you name-calling and acting like an arse-hat. :rolleyes:

For what it's worth - I don't think you are Kevin are the same person. :) You charge students 15 quid, Kevin charges $200.

Graham H

06-21-2013, 05:32 AM

Evening Graham

Actually it was a joke, probably should have put one of those smiley face things after it.

And i disagree with it getting weirder.......... thats just not possible!

Evening Glenn

You are right. It cannot get any weirder but nothing surprises me on here anymore. <<<Insert smiley face thing>>>

Graham H

06-21-2013, 05:35 AM

To be fair, I said you were 'strange' and 'hiding behind insults', and I also said that you sound like you have a few issues and that I hope you can work through them :D

Not that any of this will stop you name-calling and acting like an arse-hat. :rolleyes:

For what it's worth - I don't think you are Kevin are the same person. :) You charge students 15 quid, Kevin charges $200.

Well I didn't say who did I? :D

You are right. No ceasation of name calling from me. :p;)

What people charge is up to them. It seems though that the more esoteric and expensive people make their Wing Chun the more people will pay. Bizarre huh?

....well not really bizarre. If people think that way it means they have some scaffolding loose in their heads. :)

BPWT

06-21-2013, 05:59 AM

Well I didn't say who did I? :D

I am happy to be identified as the person who thinks you have some serious personal problems. Trolling is weird. Have a read, you might have an illness:

http://kotaku.com/5938996/the-worst-internet-trolls-might-be-mentally-ill

You are right. No ceasation of name calling from me. :p;)

Yeah, this type of trolling - it lends weight to an argument, makes people take you seriously. When you call my Sifu names because, well, he teaches something different to PB, automatically you seem adult, reasonable and intelligent to me. :rolleyes:

What people charge is up to them.

Ahuh.

Graham H

06-21-2013, 06:10 AM

I am happy to be identified as the person who thinks you have some serious personal problems. Trolling is weird. Have a read, you might have an illness:

You're like heat rash mate! Oh whoops!

Yeah, this type of trolling - it lends weight to an argument, makes people take you seriously. When you call my Sifu names because, well, he teaches something different to PB, automatically you seem adult, reasonable and intelligent to me. :rolleyes:

I'm not a troll monkey boy! Oh **** it! This forum attracts trolls because nobody can really agree on anything. It's a good playground for verbal fighting. One day someone is your friend. The next they are berating you. As long as I have been posting on here its been the same and it was long before I started. You have to ask yourself why we all continue to post. You see we all have problems my dear. :)

I called Leung Ting and your Sifu clowns because that's what they look like in their videos. FWIW your Sifu does actually look like he can fight. Why bother with all the pointless poon sau though? Like I said before....some people can just fight and make anything work. If your Sifu lost all that spaghetti arm rubbish (that means nothing) he looks quite a handful.

Leung Ting however is just a useless clown and I fail to see why he is held in such high regard with people when his Wing Tsun is absolutely diabolical.

BPWT

06-21-2013, 07:10 AM

You're like heat rash mate!

I was talking about your mental issues, rather than your physical ones - but if you have a heat rash you should try to avoid sweating so much.

I'm not a troll monkey boy!

Insulting my Sifu, a person you've never met, by calling him a clown, and saying his Wing Tsun is ludicrous (and then later saying it is diabolical) when you've never trained with him is trolling. You have never, it seems, actually trained with anyone who teaches Leung Ting Wing Tsun. You have met people from the EWTO. A different kettle of fish entirely.

FWIW your Sifu does actually look like he can fight. Why bother with all the pointless poon sau though? Like I said before....some people can just fight and make anything work. If your Sifu lost all that spaghetti arm rubbish (that means nothing) he looks quite a handful.

To call the poon sau you see 'pointless' would mean that you have an understanding of what it is there for. Please explain to me your understanding of Leung Ting Wing Tsun poon sau.

If you can't describe what it is meant to be for... then you can't really call it pointless, can you?

But here's a clue to at least part of it. What do you see happening at 0:52 - 0:54 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U373UdDfAxA

Leung Ting however is just a useless clown and I fail to see why he is held in such high regard with people when his Wing Tsun is absolutely diabolical.

Why held in high regard? I know people who have met him, trained with him and learned from him for many years - people who, later, for a variety of reasons, went their own way. Not one of those people I met has ever said that the man was lacking in skill and knowledge.

You might not like his personality - or his sense of humor; you might not like the structure of his organization - heck, you might not like his dress sense, but you'd be hard pushed to claim he is lacking in skill and knowledge.

Unless of course, you're simply saying that is your opinion based on no real exposure. In which case, you're free to have an opinion but it's trolling if you choose to lace it with insults.

Yip Man accepted him as closed door student. Yip Man attended his school openings and their events. He attended his wedding. In 1970 Yip Man appointed Leung Ting as a chief instructor of the VTAA. Clearly, Yip Man was not lacking regard for Leung Ting.

I think you lack regard for him and his Leung Ting WingTsun because you have never really seen or felt it. In a previous thread you wrote about schools that have/teach Lat Sau Jik Chung:

"...many that do have interpreted it as some sort of springy energy that comes into play when arm contact has been broken. Through this they can detect holes and weaknesses in their attackers defense and attacks. They are awesome!"

(http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1227563&postcount=33)

This is the exact springy force that Leung Ting teaches, he references it often as rattan-cane like force. This is exactly what Yip Man was talking about in the YM Interview translation I posted. The very same thing that you ridicule because you don't understand it/agree with it/or haven't been exposed to it.

Ali. R

06-21-2013, 07:11 AM

One day someone is your friend. The next they are berating you.

Oh sap! You caught that too huh, a snake will always be a snake (bite dat a$$!!!).
It's a shame (http://youtu.be/DE0EOIqwiQI)...

Take care,

guy b.

06-21-2013, 01:11 PM

No I'm not.

Your confusion is easily demonstrated: I say that many people in wing chun and bjj know me. You laugh that not many people are rushing to my defense on the forum (with the implication that not many people in wing chun know me). This makes the beginners error of assuming that this little forum in any way represents the world of wing chun.

It doesn't, and you are confused.

Are you Kevin? He keeps saying stuff like that.

Mate, everyone that disagrees with you is Kevin

Wayfaring

06-21-2013, 01:56 PM

This makes the beginners error of assuming that this little forum in any way represents the world of wing chun.

It doesn't, and you are confused.

No forum "represents the world of wing chun". Yet with that said, please point me to a discussion forum that has active participation from more lineages of wing chun than this forum. We have many varieties both from different Ip Man lineages and others as well.

You sure like namecalling though. Was grade school that long and hard on you?

guy b.

06-22-2013, 07:08 AM

No forum "represents the world of wing chun". Yet with that said, please point me to a discussion forum that has active participation from more lineages of wing chun than this forum. We have many varieties both from different Ip Man lineages and others as well.

This forum has the most varied participation from the selection of ****ty wing chun forums in the world. Great. Winner argument!

Graham H

06-22-2013, 08:00 AM

You sure like namecalling though. Was grade school that long and hard on you?

You and BPWT have got to be the same person! :)

#GlennR

Graham H

06-22-2013, 08:01 AM

I was talking about your mental issues, rather than your physical ones - but if you have a heat rash you should try to avoid sweating so much.

Insulting my Sifu, a person you've never met, by calling him a clown, and saying his Wing Tsun is ludicrous (and then later saying it is diabolical) when you've never trained with him is trolling. You have never, it seems, actually trained with anyone who teaches Leung Ting Wing Tsun. You have met people from the EWTO. A different kettle of fish entirely.

To call the poon sau you see 'pointless' would mean that you have an understanding of what it is there for. Please explain to me your understanding of Leung Ting Wing Tsun poon sau.

If you can't describe what it is meant to be for... then you can't really call it pointless, can you?

But here's a clue to at least part of it. What do you see happening at 0:52 - 0:54 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U373UdDfAxA

Why held in high regard? I know people who have met him, trained with him and learned from him for many years - people who, later, for a variety of reasons, went their own way. Not one of those people I met has ever said that the man was lacking in skill and knowledge.

You might not like his personality - or his sense of humor; you might not like the structure of his organization - heck, you might not like his dress sense, but you'd be hard pushed to claim he is lacking in skill and knowledge.

Unless of course, you're simply saying that is your opinion based on no real exposure. In which case, you're free to have an opinion but it's trolling if you choose to lace it with insults.

Yip Man accepted him as closed door student. Yip Man attended his school openings and their events. He attended his wedding. In 1970 Yip Man appointed Leung Ting as a chief instructor of the VTAA. Clearly, Yip Man was not lacking regard for Leung Ting.

I think you lack regard for him and his Leung Ting WingTsun because you have never really seen or felt it. In a previous thread you wrote about schools that have/teach Lat Sau Jik Chung:

"...many that do have interpreted it as some sort of springy energy that comes into play when arm contact has been broken. Through this they can detect holes and weaknesses in their attackers defense and attacks. They are awesome!"

(http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1227563&postcount=33)

This is the exact springy force that Leung Ting teaches, he references it often as rattan-cane like force. This is exactly what Yip Man was talking about in the YM Interview translation I posted. The very same thing that you ridicule because you don't understand it/agree with it/or haven't been exposed to it.

blah blah blah blah blah

BPWT

06-22-2013, 10:16 AM

blah blah blah blah blah

Thanks Graham. I am not really understanding baby talk - but I will take it all this 'blah blah' stuff means you:

a) Can't explain poon sau from our lineage

b) Can't illustrate how what I said about Yip Man and Leung Ting is incorrect

c) Refuse to admit that the springy energy/force Yip Man talks about is exactly what Leung Ting speaks about (something you think is BS).

Well done.

Epic. Fail.

guy b.

06-22-2013, 12:53 PM

Thanks Graham. I am not really understanding baby talk - but I will take it all this 'blah blah' stuff means you:

a) Can't explain poon sau from our lineage

b) Can't illustrate how what I said about Yip Man and Leung Ting is incorrect

c) Refuse to admit that the springy energy/force Yip Man talks about is exactly what Leung Ting speaks about (something you think is BS).

Well done.

Epic. Fail.

Look, wing chun is a pretty ropey martial art. Most of it is utter crap to be honest, and Leung Ting is a prime example of how bad it gets. Do yourself a favour and look around. Even leave wing chun if that is your only alternative. WT isn't worth the waste of life.

BPWT

06-22-2013, 01:08 PM

Look, wing chun is a pretty ropey martial art. Most of it is utter crap to be honest, and Leung Ting is a prime example of how bad it gets. Do yourself a favour and look around. Even leave wing chun if that is your only alternative. WT isn't worth the waste of life.

Thanks for the advice. There is WSL, Lok Yiu, Yip Chun, Lun Gai and William Cheung lineages in the city I live in. Plus many great Japanese martial art teachers too, and a few people teaching South East Asian arts. There's a growing MMA scene and a few BJJ clubs too.

I've met with most of these people/lineages over the years, and with some I became friends and so we spar together when we can - and I'm very happy staying with the Leung Ting Wing Tsun. But thanks for your concern.

anerlich

06-22-2013, 04:47 PM

You laugh that not many people are rushing to my defense on the forum (with the implication that not many people in wing chun know me). This makes the beginners error of assuming that this little forum in any way represents the world of wing chun.

It doesn't, and you are confused.

I never said the forum was representative of anything. I think you are confusing yourself.

I was alluding to your popularity and the high regard (something you share with Leung Ting, it appears) with which you are held on the forum, due no doubt to your fine communication and people skills, and endearing personality.

Mate, everyone that disagrees with you is Kevin

Good to know, Kev.

k gledhill

06-22-2013, 06:52 PM

Graham H

06-23-2013, 12:17 AM

Graham H

06-23-2013, 12:17 AM

BPWT

06-23-2013, 05:29 AM

Inseet more baby talk here <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

Why are you posting to again confirm you can't answer the questions?

We already established that you can't provide the answers.

BPWT

06-23-2013, 02:08 PM

I was alluding to your popularity and the high regard (something you share with Leung Ting, it appears)...

Of course Leung Ting was held in high regard by Yip Man, anerlich. :)

If you reverse the premise it would become clear there was no logic to Yip Man's actions. Assuming Yip Man was indeed a fairly intelligent person, it stands to reason there was a good teacher/student relationship, and that's its public voicing was a reflection of this.

For example, look how illogical it becomes if I say the following:

----

Because he had no regard for Leung Ting, Yip Man decided to teach him privately after he had officially retired from teaching.

Because Yip Man had no regard for Leung Ting, he publicly validated teaching him by making the fact known in an interview with a martial arts magazine.

Yip Man, when in HK, was averse to giving interviews. In his 23 years or so in HK, only two interviews were given. However, these two interviews were made possible by Leung Ting who organized the reporter and photographer to visit the Grandmaster; interviews that Yip Man agreed to even though he had no regard for Leung Ting.

Although now public knowledge that he was teaching Leung Ting, Yip Man was so lacking in regard for his private student that he appeared at Leung Ting's public WingTsun demo's and events, thus validating those events and the system LT was showing during the events.

Around 1967, Yip Man and some of his students established the Hong Kong Ving Tsun Athletic Association. Yip Man had high regard for Wong Shun Leung, who was often Chairman of the VTAA. Leung Ting, at the recommendation of Yip Man, was made a chief instructor of the VTAA in 1970, despite the fact Yip Man had no real regard for Leung Ting.

----

As you can see - this makes no sense at all.

Why would Yip Man teach LT, let the fact be known, and then on various occasions publicly validate that teaching if:

a) he had no regard for Leung Ting?
b) Leung Ting was not teaching what he had been taught by Yip Man?

The latter point is particularly uncomfortable for some people (namely those who claim that LT's system is BS). Clearly, what Leung Ting trained and taught wasn't seen as bullish*t by Yip Man. Yip Man watched Leung Ting performing the art he had taught him and never said, "Hang on! That's not my Wing Tsun."

Wayfaring

06-24-2013, 07:52 AM

What's the whole point of all this Yip Man "regard" we are establishing for Leung Ting?

All that really means even if you do establish it is that Leung Ting was a good student at a particular time under Yip Man. Or possibly over a period of time.

It doesn't speak to what has happened since Yip Man's death. I mean maybe KK was mostly what was wrong there but I doubt it was all of it and even if it was that's LT's responsibility.

Also, I guess since training in a non Yip Man lineage I notice a lot more static among Yip Man lineages as to who was "closer" to Yip Man, spent more time training under him, who got the real goods, etc.

Some of that is traditional. Connection to the ancestors is important, more in the eastern philosophy than western. IMO you need balance. If you're connected to the past but not the present then you'll die out. If you're only connected to the present and have no connection to the past then you are forever doomed to reinvent the wheel.

k gledhill

06-24-2013, 08:06 AM

BPWT

06-24-2013, 11:21 AM

What's the whole point of all this Yip Man "regard" we are establishing for Leung Ting?

The usual. Comments about Leung Ting being this, that and the other (pick something derogatory, it was probably said). I disputed it and then justified what I said.

Graham and Kevin 'pulled a Graham_H ©' - that is to say, countered with things like "blah, blah, blah." :rolleyes:

All that really means even if you do establish it is that Leung Ting was a good student at a particular time under Yip Man. Or possibly over a period of time.

Yes.

It doesn't speak to what has happened since Yip Man's death. I mean maybe KK was mostly what was wrong there but I doubt it was all of it and even if it was that's LT's responsibility.

Yes, KK's impact is undeniable :) and that is why I often stress that I study LT Wing Tsun with Maday Norbert, not KK's art. Is LT responsible for KK's EWTO today? In part, yes.

But again, that doesn't take anything away from LT's ability, his knowledge, or his relationship with Yip Man.

Also, I guess since training in a non Yip Man lineage I notice a lot more static among Yip Man lineages as to who was "closer" to Yip Man, spent more time training under him, who got the real goods, etc.

For sure. I generally don't comment on other YM linages too much - my only interest is what LT got from Yip Man.

BPWT

06-24-2013, 11:34 AM

All about $ , closer to YM more arse kissing rights and $.

In part, it often is. KK's focus was always to build a huge business. LT had no problem with that too - and Wayfaring is correct, part of the responsibility for the state of the EWTO does indeed rest with LT.

Not because KK teaches what LT teaches (KK does not), but because LT allowed KK to teach as he saw fit.

All of that said, LT is not the businessman KK is, even though he is happy to make a buck. LT also knows the art is being passed on as he wants it - that might not be from Germany, but I don't think he cares. He teaches his art, and others do teach it properly too.

My problem is with three things:

1. People that equate Leung Ting with KK and think the two's arts are synonymous.
2. People who seem blind to the fact that LT has very real Wing Tsun knowledge and skill.
3. People that deny that LT learned the bulk of what he teaches directly from Yip Man. Not all of it (i.e. his trips to mainland China starting in the early 80's had an impact), but the vast majority (even if that is an uncomfortable fact for some to swallow).

anerlich

06-24-2013, 03:20 PM

Of course Leung Ting was held in high regard by Yip Man, anerlich. :)

To clarify, I have no issues with Leung Ting ... except for the fact that he allowed KK to crown him the Master of Almightiness ... :p

Wayfaring

06-24-2013, 05:35 PM

My problem is with three things:

My problem with KK lies in this kind of ****e:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJiltu3o-D4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw3O66kh-C8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDFdFWJc3M

and especially this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6STx6wrzIvk

I don't know what those two are doing but don't think it should be done in public, especially at the around :50 mark.

anerlich

06-24-2013, 06:35 PM

My problem with KK lies in this kind of ****e:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJiltu3o-D4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw3O66kh-C8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDFdFWJc3M

and especially this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6STx6wrzIvk

I don't know what those two are doing but don't think it should be done in public, especially at the around :50 mark.

That knife defense stuff is particularly egregious - awesome ways to get yourself killed. And the rest is all ridiculous stuff against starstruck students offering no resistance.

k gledhill

06-24-2013, 08:31 PM

In part, it often is. KK's focus was always to build a huge business. LT had no problem with that too - and Wayfaring is correct, part of the responsibility for the state of the EWTO does indeed rest with LT.

Not because KK teaches what LT teaches (KK does not), but because LT allowed KK to teach as he saw fit.

All of that said, LT is not the businessman KK is, even though he is happy to make a buck. LT also knows the art is being passed on as he wants it - that might not be from Germany, but I don't think he cares. He teaches his art, and others do teach it properly too.

My problem is with three things:

1. People that equate Leung Ting with KK and think the two's arts are synonymous.
2. People who seem blind to the fact that LT has very real Wing Tsun knowledge and skill.
3. That LT learned the bulk of what he teaches directly from Yip Man. Not all of it (i.e. his trips to mainland China starting in the early 80's had an impact), but the vast majority (even if that is an uncomfortable fact for some to swallow).

Leung Ting. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck....what is it ?
1 an eagle
2 a beagle
3 a seagul
4 a duck

BPWT

06-24-2013, 11:41 PM

@ Wayfaring and anerlich

No disagreement from me - KK seems to have taken drills from Systema and tried to add them into what he does. In numerous EWTO videos, the content is now very far removed from Wing Tsun, sadly.

Regarding the knife defense - these are probably Systema influenced too (though to be fair to Systema, such drills are more about body awareness than true knife defense), but yes... if people train like this and think it is useable... they are going to feel the pointy end.

BPWT

06-24-2013, 11:51 PM

Leung Ting. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck....what is it ?
1 an eagle
2 a beagle
3 a seagul
4 a duck

Kevin Gledhill. If he, someone who actually teaches under the PBWSLVT name, incessantly posts inaccurate drivel and idiotic insults, and spends time doing little more than attacking others because they haven't signed up for the PB distance learning program he is on, is he:

1. A child trapped in a man's body?
2. A simple internet troll?
3. Someone who has drunk too much of Viktor Kan's, sorry, Philipp Bayer's, sorry, his own Kool-Aid?
4. A simple case of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

People who invest so much time in critiquing Leung Ting and his system are usually the ones who fear accepting that if he, Leung Ting, got his system from Yip Man (a fact that is really undeniable), then it raises some awkward questions about what they themselves do.

BPWT

06-25-2013, 12:05 AM

and especially this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6STx6wrzIvk

I don't know what those two are doing but don't think it should be done in public, especially at the around :50 mark.

C'mon. You train BJJ... you know you've been in worse positions with another man - in public :D

JPinAZ

06-25-2013, 12:07 AM

People who invest so much time in critiquing Leung Ting and his system are usually the ones who fear accepting that if he, Leung Ting, got his system from Yip Man (a fact that is really undeniable), then it raises some awkward questions about what they themselves do.

I honestly don't think that's the issue. For example, while I really could care less about this LT argument, I've seen his clips and IMO his personal skill and performance of WC in those clips is god-awful. Since I am not from YM lineage, I have no bone in the fight and it matters little to me who got what from YM or who was his best/worst student. Yet I also agree with the general opinion of LT's clips.

So, could it that when people say LT's wck doesn't look that great, it could be just for that reason and not because of some jealousy that LT was close to yip man or not?
I hope you see my point.
Regardless, this whole LT thing is getting pretty old ad has nothing to do with the subject, so hopefully we can bury this turd - it's starting to stink :p

Graham H

06-25-2013, 12:35 AM

'pulled a Graham_H ©' - that is to say, countered with things like "blah, blah, blah." :rolleyes:

:D:D

Without wasting more time making long derogatory posts about LT it is safe to say that around the world he is generally considered to be a clown and HIS Wing Tsun is complete rubbish BUT that it not to say that in his cult......I mean organization....that there are not good fighters. As I said before some guys can make any sh1t work if they are born fighters.

From a POV where you have to look at a system of unarmed combat and its functionality and effectiveness LTWT is absurd. Not many people would deny that me thinks.

With clenched teeth and a grimace I would say that I prefer Ip Chun's version..........excuse me whilst I run to the toilet and be sick a minute :D

BPWT

06-25-2013, 12:48 AM

I honestly don't think that's the issue. For example, while I really could care less about this LT argument, I've seen his clips and IMO his personal skill and performance of WC in those clips is god-awful. Since I am not from YM lineage, I have no bone in the fight and it matters little to me who got what from YM or who was his best/worst student. Yet I also agree with the general opinion of LT's clips.

So, could it that when people say LT's wck doesn't look that great, it could be just for that reason and not because of some jealousy that LT was close to yip man or not?
I hope you see my point.
Regardless, this whole LT thing is getting pretty old ad has nothing to do with the subject, so hopefully we can bury this turd - it's starting to stink :p

Yes, I see your point. Anyone can look at clips and form an opinion (negative if they feel that way). That's really not a problem for me.

Maybe I could see a clip from your lineage and maybe not like it. Maybe I would ask you a question about it. I'm sure you wouldn't mind. :)

But if I insulted your Sifu, said that the system was BS, and that your Sifu himself was cr*p, etc, etc, you would probably ask if I had met and trained at all with your Sifu. You'd want to know if I was basing my opinion on something real - some physical interaction.

Like I said earlier, everyone I know who has trained with Leung Ting (whether they are in his organization today, or not), has never disputed his knowledge or skills.

Regarding who got what from Yip Man - it matters and doesn't matter. No one on the forum is going jump off a bridge over the topic. But when people insist that LT's system is BS, it does raise a few questions. Yip Man taught the man and didn't have a problem with what LT was doing. He supported him publicly.

But yes, it is becoming a tired topic. And most of the protagonists in this are not in it for an honest discussion - as evidenced by how they attack any lineage that doesn't spring from PB. :rolleyes: