Quote:
Originally Posted by
KPM
I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!
Yes, it is -- it is very different. I just went back and rewatched it.
To start with, the person throwing the haymaker is in range (to actually hit), so is Alan, so there is no "reaching", Alan does not stay out (as Phil does) but gets in CLOSE, Alan does not try to "step off the line", etc. It is night and dsy.
Quote:
---Phil used a Lop Sao in the video above, and Alan uses a Biu Sao, but the idea is the same...they both controlled the strike at the elbow while stepping in and out to that side.
No. Alan uses a bil sao as he charges forward -- not to the side -- and is striking with the bil sao to the opponent arm (his upper arm).
Quote:
Terence said:
1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent,
---Alan is at the same distance that Phil shows. This is punching distance without being within "clinching" distance.
WTF are you talking about? Phil is out of range and Alan - and his demo partner - are BOTH in range (they can touch the other guy without moving).
Quote:
I think Phil's point was that if you are that close, you won't be able to see anything coming. If you are that close, you should already be attaching and controlling, not blocking hay-makers.
Phil didn't SAY that. He said you can't see so you want to step out. Stop making things up.
Quote:
where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.
---Right. But that wasn't what Phil was demonstrating, nor what Alan was demonstrating on his video. What they were both showing was defending against a punch BEFORE you get into that distance.
It makes absolutely no sense for Phil to START in close (where we ultimately want to be), explain how this is NOT where you want to be since you can't see, and move to the outside to then deal with his punches, if he really wants to be on the inside. Alan, on the other hand, starts on the inside and continues forward, into his opponent -- when he performs the biu sao he ends up within a half foot of his opponent's body. What Alan and Phil are showing are two very different things.
Quote:
3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body.
---Alan also showed stepping out and to the side, catching the opponent at the elbow and unbalancing him. Apparently he thinks there will be time to see this coming. Again, it depends on the distance....as Phil pointed out in his clip.
No. Alan moved FORWARD into his opponent, not off to the side. He CLOSED IN. There was no side-step. He did that to hit with his body -- using his biu sao to the opponent's arm.
Quote:
4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
---Yea, I gotta admit, that one was pretty silly! Sorry Phil! :)
It was all silly. But he is parroting how Cheung teaches.
Quote:
5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.
---That's exactly how Alan shows it on his video as well. Now granted, he has Neil and Aaron drilling this technique "live" in the following section. But Phil only had a 2 minute clip, not an entire DVD.
Alan shows how when you hit the opponent with your body (with the biu sao) it will destroy the opponent's structure so that he can't hit with #2 -- he talks about that as he shows it. He even explains why happens if you don't hit with yoru body (when you reach, you can't break his structure and he hits you with #2, and his partner demos that). Do you not pay attention?
And, as you indicate, after the demo, they do it live - where the opponent can throw #2.
Quote:
6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.
---He did a PaK Sau against the jab, exactly what Alan shows on his DVD. Phil wasn't reaching any more than Alan does.
Keith, seriously, you must be blind. When Alan shows his pak sao it is again hitting the opponent's arm with his body, he is in range when he does it, he is doing it to break his opponent's structure, etc. It is night and day. Do they both show a pak sao? Yes, but that is the only thing they have in common.
Quote:
7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.
---It was a 2 minute demo. On Alan's video, in the 2 minutes where he is showing the same defense, he isn't too worried about his partner's rear hand either.
Alan shows and explains why his opponent won't be able to hit with the rear since he is hitting the opponent and breaking his structure. And he shows how his other hand will come into play to stop anything should he not break structure.
Quote:
So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?
---If they are, they aren't that different from Alan Orr's WCK "principles." I wish I had the ability to post that clip from Alan's DVD so people could compare it to Phil's clip. I'm telling you....they aren't that different!
And I'm telling you that you are blind. And this only illustrates why I think it a waste of time to put up videos. You don't see the problems with Phil's video, you don't see how what Alan does is completely different in every respect, etc. If you can't see it, why should anyone bother to post something? You are looking with YOUR eyes -- and you can only see at your level.
And, this is to all the people who jumped on what Keith posted: you should be ashamed of yourselves. NONE of you actually did any work yourself, actually bothered to look at the video in question, and see for yourself. You were all too happy to accept what someone else said because it suited what you wanted to believe. And while none of you actually took the time to check, or even to think about it, you were willing to take the time to post your opinion on something that you had no firsthand experience with, something you did not know.