Quote:
That most wing chun is NOT natural expression. It is forcing natural reactions into unnatural expression. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing: sometimes you have force yourself into unnatural patterns of movement for the sake of a useful technique/strategy (e.g. I don't like most of the throws that involve you throwing yourself to the ground from a Russian arm drag - they seem very unnatural... but done that way the result is what I want: someone on the floor hopefully under me or set up for an arm bar). But in a lot of wing chun you force yourself to internalise these patterns... and then force yourself to change them when you use them in fighting...!!! Doesn't make sense.
Oh absolutely. I completely agree.
Quote:
My point is that dodging and riding blows are HUGE parts of fighting, and to have a 'style' that eschews these things, that even forces you to have a fairly motionless upper body is a HUGE flaw. You can't move your whole body out the way of a full speed strike or kick, but you can by using moving your upper body. Also, despite chun having a hook and an uppercut, these are still based on the premise that your upper body is a solid unit. Which is daft.
Again, I completely agree that these are major parts of fighting. I dislike the idea of style for anything else except as a terms of reference for a group of ideas. The idea that you must fight as a style is ridiculous, because then as you said, things like dodging and riding(or anything else), which are highly effective, are lost on the practitioner.
Quote:
Point taken: no need to get touchy. Maybe I should have said 'something missing from your list'. It's a turn of phrase, and not an accusatory one.
:D
Quote:
Boxing is rigid for absolute beginners in their first couple of weeks. As soon as they get into a ring it’d had better’ve gone. BJJ, wrestling etc, MAY be rigid for a day or two… but again it soon has to go… same with Thai, same with kickboxing, even karate as soon as they fight. So I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
With boxing, BJJ, wrestling, thai boxing - Their philosophies allow a lot of room for personal expression. In boxing, all of the top boxers own their jab, their cross, etc. - When I say almost all styles, I don't include these for the most part. I mean the many, many schools of karate and kung fu in particular, especially wing chun, that force their practitioners into a rigid, static expression. That you are forced into doing things exactly as they are taught, and that there is no other way.
I never encountered this in any of the bjj, boxing, or muay thai I've ever taken. But man, the kung fu and karate schools, even some of the jkd schools out here, I've seen this.
Quote:
I also don’t know what you’re trying to say in terms of ‘science’. To call any fighting methods ‘science’ is to show a fundamental ignorance of scientific method, and of fighting! Even just to say that they are ‘scientific’ is conceit! Are you really telling me that in some way knowledge of leverage and physics and statistical probability as to the potential reactions you’re going to get has anything to do with how you fight?!
Definitively, Scientifc method is a means of understanding. Hypothosis, experimentation to determine truth or falseness.
Does it have anything to do with how you're fighting in the moment? No. Can it help you to develop your training methods and what you train and attempt to understand? Absolutely.
Quote:
Now, I don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying. Lifting your arms to cover up is natural. Specifically, lifting your arms with your hands palm-in by your head and your elbows forwards or down is a natural cover up. Bong is not. From what you’re saying, the boxing cover, or even the Thai guard which is different to the boxing one, are the same as each other, are the same as the spike/shell guard, and are the same as the bong sao. You could argue the first three, but the bong sao is up when the others are down. You’re not trying to argue that up is down, are you?
I don't mean to say they are exactly the same. I believe they are fundamentally different with the same original idea in mind. It could be argued that bong sao's development started with this idea to cover up, and evolved to serve a more effective purpose.
Quote:
And AGAIN, like with bong and covering, you were upholding specifically the lop as a grab itself that covers any variable? It doesn’t. Apart from the fact that we’ve then got the argument Liddel brought up that it more often than not isn’t even a grab… you’re agreeing with him while holding that it’s THE wing chun example of a grab to rival judo/JJ’s/wrestling’s grab positioning work? Sounds like the bong sao up = down argument again to me!
I didn't mean to say it was *the* wing chun example of a grab. It is in some forms of wing chun. And literally the name means grabbing hand. But in WC it is whatever the lineage says it is. I'm saying take the WC or "Style" out of the equation and saying I use it to describe the idea of a grab. Ehh, that doesn't mean I don't use the WC ideas in ways that don't "grab". In TWC, the first WC style I started out with, it wasn't a grab. But its a personal classification based on language.
The *reason* I use lop to describe my knowledge of grabbing outside of style, is just a better way for me to catalog what I've learned on that specific subject, regardless of what style it comes from. Its just a name for a very basic concept. Then the knowledge and variables supplement that very basic concept.
The WC expression specifically can be many different things depending on who you talk to. I'm not saying my idea of lop sao, is the WC way.
Quote:
The fact that you're using 'would probably become' suggests to me that you've never tried it in anything like real fighting...!
I say "probably" only because it depends on the person.
Quote:
but at full speed with full resistance and full strength attacking and defending... which chi sao ain't!
Chi sao should be, IMHO.
Quote:
If it's like sparring, then it isn't sparring!
The reason I classify it as different from sparring is because the focus is fighting on the inside. And you'd stop and restart when that focus is lost. Only because the focus is training your inside fighting to a higher level.
Quote:
And not only 'Why not spar?' but, why not start in a clinch trying to knee each other in the thighs, in the ghoolies, headbutt each other, elbow each other and box out each other's livers...?! Since, you know, that's the range you're saying chi sao is for developing to an expert degree.
Both me and him have trained (or in his case, do train) muay thai, and the clinch, knees, elbows, headbutts, inside boxing, throws, shoots, wrestling, all of that is fair game, full force and full speed.
Quote:
So you do actually spar too? And there aren't any imaginary rules to it?
Absolutely. Sparring is essential to martial arts.
Quote:
You'd like to say... you haven't fought in any capacity have you? I mean, in the street, on the door, in a bar, at school, in a ring, even in FC protected sparring with a 'ref'? The way you're explaining this IT IS a complex, over-analysed performance...! And you teach, too? Have your students fought using what you've taught?
Absolutely I've fought and sparred plenty. I've fought in a smokers at some local gyms too. Last one I did I blew my knee out, so I had to take a break for about a year, but I'm training right now to go back.
The reason I say "I'd like to say", is because I'm not an elite MMA fighter. I've fought, but I can't say I know just because I can beat up people on the street who, who knows what they know or don't know. There are no standards of fighting on the street. And since I've never fought(sparred, but not fought) a professional fighter and not just some dude at a smoker or amateur fight, how can I say, yes, for sure I apply everything perfectly. :D
As for teaching, I've taught some of the concepts I've learned to help give some people a different perspective, but I don't have enough time in my day to have any "students". I've helped teach some people who have their own trainers, to help them break out of the rigidity and think outside the box.