Wing Chun and fighting-How to do it?

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
kj wrote:

I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of "techinques."

**Tell me, in your "performance" of what -- forms or drills?

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I'd oblige.

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn't begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200. Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another. Just be sure to tell us which list we're on so we can know unequivocally who we're allowed to converse with and who we've no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right "teams": being as I am a "non fighter" (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn't possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way ... [shakes own head at self].

<sigh>

[and apologies to the readership for my apparent lapse and rant]

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them; it's the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn't baffle me. When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you'll keep writing about you, I'll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

Regards,
- kj

[Tydive]

Point to Kathy for using solid WC written technique to interrupt an attack by going for the center.

I wonder if Terrance really does not understand that at a certian point many of us no longer see a specific technique only as the start and end point. Rather as you gain experience it becomes more about being in the centered state and moving appropriatly given the current situation.

[PaulH]

It's too early to tell the outcome of the trial, but I do think the prosecuting attorney need to act more aggressively to downplay the brilliant defense that we just see so far. I sense the jury is very impatient and that could be very bad if the prosecutor star keep nagging the simple facts indefinitely... Stay tuned for more exciting news from your local independent forum. =)

[t_niehoff]

KJ wrote:

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I'd oblige.

**No set up intended, just making a point. Some questions are rhetorical. You do realize that?

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn't begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200.

**You voluntarily joined in a discussion entitled "WC fighitng - How to do it" -- I guess you don't see the irony? (Hint: rhetorical question).

Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

**Hey, I'm sure everyone that stands along side the pool doing their landswimming is an individual! I'm not saying they're not individuals, nor am I saying they are not nice people -- but when some of these individuals begin to give us opinions on swimming, don't be surprised that someone points out that as nonswimmers, they don't know what they are talking about. Did I just lump a bunch of people that don't swim into the category of nonswimmer -- oh, my God! How beastly. On what possible basis could I do that? (Hint: rhetorical question).

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another.

**I'm sure there are.

Just be sure to tell us which list we're on so we can know unequivocally who we're allowed to converse with and who we've no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

**Which list? The WCK list. You know, those folks that actually do WCK.

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right "teams": being as I am a "non fighter" (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn't possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way ... [shakes own head at self].

**You can't possibly operate in "nontechnique oriented ways" because you're not operating in the first place -- this is a nonswimmer saying they operate in "nontechnique oriented ways"! You can't "operate" without getting in the pool. What "operating" do you think you're doing? Do you really think that someone that never gets in the pool can in any conceivable way transcend swimming technique?

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them;

**I don't think you do understand them -- if you did understand that perspective, you wouldn't say some of the things you do. You know, things like how you operate in "nontechnique oridented ways."

it's the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn't baffle me.

**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills. Would you consider it extreme for someone on the swimming forum to keep pointing out that folks weren't swimming? What an extremist -- thinking that unless folks get in the water they don't know anything about swimming.

When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you'll keep writing about you, I'll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

**Rationalize however you want.

[Tydive]

**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

False appeal to authority, 5 yard penalty.

[PaulH]

=): It appears that the prosecuting team has gathered enough steam on its latest round of frontal assault. Tell me, =(, whether you think that the prosecutor can make the label of dryland swimmer stick?

=(: Well, I don't know, =), I saw juror # 12 was very hostile to the prosecuting presentation of their latest discriminating "evidences" exhibited. Didn't you notice?

=): I understand that the case has be nagged on just a little more than 6 months...

=(: Well, the due process of law practice must have its full run. Please remember to vote for me on your next ballot.

=): And that's all, folks! Stay tuned!

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

Sorry, T, but I've got to disagree with you on this one.
I'm extreme and you are more extreme than I am.

As far as a non-fighting theoretician being able to transcend technique, I think one can. Chi sao is not fighting, but it is a kind of game that includes techniques. If one gets good enough at chi sao, he or she can transcend the techniques.

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KJ wrote:

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I'd oblige.

**No set up intended, just making a point. Some questions are rhetorical. You do realize that?

Yes, ignorant as a hillbilly but still I get it. Go figure. If I didn't, I'd be trying to post a lot more often, LOL.

Or maybe I just "think" I get it ... hmmm ...

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn't begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200.

**You voluntarily joined in a discussion entitled "WC fighitng - How to do it" -- I guess you don't see the irony? (Hint: rhetorical question).

And here I thought I was posting to a "discussion" list, where things like, uhm, "discussion" take place. Don't that beat all, how perspectives differ!

Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

**Hey, I'm sure everyone that stands along side the pool doing their landswimming is an individual! I'm not saying they're not individuals, nor am I saying they are not nice people -- but when some of these individuals begin to give us opinions on swimming, don't be surprised that someone points out that as nonswimmers, they don't know what they are talking about. Did I just lump a bunch of people that don't swim into the category of nonswimmer -- oh, my God! How beastly. On what possible basis could I do that? (Hint: rhetorical question).

It would go ****her if I a) bought it as a sound use of analogy and b) if all models, pushed to limits, didn't break down.

Hmmmm ... there I go not understanding rhetoric again. Dang; snagged agin.

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another.

**I'm sure there are.

Just be sure to tell us which list we're on so we can know unequivocally who we're allowed to converse with and who we've no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

**Which list? The WCK list. You know, those folks that actually do WCK.

Ouch! That one really smarts!

[BTW, if you alienate enough people, it could grow to get mighty lonely ... just a bumpkin hunch on that.]

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right "teams": being as I am a "non fighter" (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn't possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don't think or operate in a technique-oriented way ... [shakes own head at self].

**You can't possibly operate in "nontechnique oriented ways" because you're not operating in the first place -- this is a nonswimmer saying they operate in "nontechnique oriented ways"! You can't "operate" without getting in the pool. What "operating" do you think you're doing? Do you really think that someone that never gets in the pool can in any conceivable way transcend swimming technique?

Finally! (and as requested) we cut to the chase. Thank the Lord.

Okay, I'm the first one on the non-fighter list. (Translation of the more common "non-swimmer"* terminology for general convenience and those who didn't get that part.) I love to lead, especially when there's no one to follow, LOL. So, who's next? Let's stop *****footing around, and get those lists down now, once and for all. You're either a fighter or non-fighter, and you either practice WCK or you don't dagnabbit.

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them;

**I don't think you do understand them -- if you did understand that perspective, you wouldn't say some of the things you do. You know, things like how you operate in "nontechnique oridented ways."

Clarification. I only claim to understand the majority of your points as written, and agree with many if not most of them. I never meant to imply that I understand you or your experience. I do, however, appreciate how intimately familiar you are with my and others' life experiences.

it's the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn't baffle me.

**My perspective isn't extreme

Oh, okay then.

-- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

Maybe, maybe not; I'll know for sure when I'm omniscient. (Okay, okay, I'll say it just this once: ... "like you." Don't blame me ... the crowd urged me on!!! )

FWIW, I don't see others who either a) do or b) claim to "genuinely" train to increase their fighting skills behaving toward others in the manner you do, or press points to the extreme as you do. Not even our other pro-active fighting protagonists on the forum. I don't see anyone trying to draw a "line in the sand" between people as vigorously as you.

Would you consider it extreme for someone on the swimming forum to keep pointing out that folks weren't swimming? What an extremist -- thinking that unless folks get in the water they don't know anything about swimming.

That's one o' them thar rhetorical questions, ain't it?

When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you'll keep writing about you, I'll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

**Rationalize however you want.

Dawgonnit, I'll shore try!

I'm not so arrogant or self-delusional as to think I have the ability or energy to hold my own with a tenured prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. Near half a century old and I just heard about a thing called "debate club" for the first time last year, LOL. I realize this means you'll have to put some more hurt on me now and I'll just have to take my lumps. Well, at least maybe we've broken the old patterns and some of the forum "tensions" just a little, even if just for a little while. Who knows, maybe even enough to lighten things up on the KFO a mere tad and get folks feeling a little more comfortable and inspired to offer up some new and interesting things to jaw on about awhile. Even us non-Wing Chun types can enjoy some good or interesting dialog. At least we fancy we can.

[My apologies to our fellow readers. I'm apparently just feeling a bit "Weilandish" today. I'll get over it quick enough, LOL. Thanks for your toleration.]

Now, what was that question uppatop there ... something about what has fighting taught the fighters about Wing Chun or sump'n like that?

Regards,
- kj

* Correction. Make that "dry-land swimmer." Yeesh, you'd think I'd have that one down by now!

[KPM]

Kathy Jo, you're a real peach! You crack me up! And you're right on IMHO!

Terrence, I'll ask again as I have many times recently.....where's the balance? You like labels, I think a good one for you is "extremist" as the above posts suggest. :-)

Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


I started a thread that was about all of us sharing some video clips of ourselves. Out of all the people (and that includes the KFO fighters/non fighters) who chat on this board only 2 or 3 or us were or are willing. How sad! Well, lets change that and say: Only 2 or 3 or us even replied to that scary idea. Why? The camera will be rolling for everyone to see you!

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again? Those with more experience can help us by looking back on their experience (or recording some for us to view) so this is where the Fighters can really make a difference versus just repeating their (our) mantras about what we believe WCK is or isnt.

Hopefully, more people will be up for this idea as we can all learn from each others comments/views of our performances. AND please do not say:

I have no access to a digital camera!

All of us know someone who has one and there is a site that will post it up for free so we do not even have to build a special site!

Come on Fighters and non Fighters!

Show us your stuff!


Regards,

[t_niehoff]

tydive wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False appeal to authority, 5 yard penalty.

**Bzzzt. Wrong. Appeal to evidence.

---------------

kj wrote:

Finally! (and as requested) we cut to the chase. Thank the Lord.

Okay, I'm the first one on the non-fighter list. (Translation of the more common "non-swimmer"* terminology for general convenience and those who didn't get that part.) I love to lead, especially when there's no one to follow, LOL. So, who's next? Let's stop *****footing around, and get those lists down now, once and for all. You're either a fighter or non-fighter, and you either practice WCK or you don't dagnabbit.

**I don't put anyone on any list. Do you fight as a regular part of your training? Tell me do you skydive? If you don't skydive, am I labelling you, putting you on some list, to say "you're not a skydiver"? I'm merely pointing out the blantantly obvious. Truth isn't a label.

FWIW, I don't see others who either a) do or b) claim to "genuinely" train to increase their fighting skills behaving toward others in the manner you do, or press points to the extreme as you do. Not even our other pro-active fighting protagonists on the forum. I don't see anyone trying to draw a "line in the sand" between people as vigorously as you.

**I'll grant you that I'm consistent and forceful. But what you don't understand is that I'm not "drawing the line" -- it is already there. And many, if not most, of the "theoretician" posts implicitly or expressly present, reinforce, and promote that other-side-of-the-line view. It's overwhelmingly prevalent. It's the bad stench of the rotting corpse of WCK. And then you have the nerve to say, "can't we on that other side of the line, just discuss things as we want? do you always have to interpose your view?" Well, yeah, just to point out, if nothing more, the stink (that underlying prevailing view).

**BTW, I use the terms "nonfighter" and "theoretican" interchangably because in a fighting method, one who isn't fighting (nonfighter) isn't actually doing the method (a boxer who doesn't box isn't doing the method), they are doing drills and forms and theorizing how what they are doing would "work" in a fight (should I need to get into the ring, then I'd . . . ). As I remember, in one of our discussions you even said something to the effect of how you could "extrapoloate" from the drills (like chi sao) into fighitng. See -- that's being a theoretician. Do fighters theorize too? Sure. But they test rather than rely on those theories. The testing makes them practitioners as they are actually using the method.

------------------

KF wrote:

As far as a non-fighting theoretician being able to transcend technique, I think one can. Chi sao is not fighting, but it is a kind of game that includes techniques. If one gets good enough at chi sao, he or she can transcend the techniques.

**Perhaps within the context of a drill she can -- that's not the >>context<< of where transcending technique matters. I suppose someone could say "when I do the pak da drill I no longer think in terms of technique like pak sao or the punch but . . . . " BFD.

[t_niehoff]

JR wrote:

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again?

**You're not going to "learn" anything from clips -- get your @sses out on the floor, mats, whatever, and mix it up. That's the only way. You learn and develop by doing. Theoreticians love clips, so they can sit in their armchairs and critique based on their fantasy-driven notions of how WCK *should* (that word is a theoretician giveaway btw) be done. Then "debate" whether "theoretically" that clip was good or bad, etc. It's nonsense.

[SAAMAG]

I think the reason they want the vids is to see who is simply talking and who can actually practice what they preach.

Makes good sense considering all the smack talk on here.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
JR wrote:

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again?

**You're not going to "learn" anything from clips -- get your @sses out on the floor, mats, whatever, and mix it up. That's the only way. You learn and develop by doing. Theoreticians love clips, so they can sit in their armchairs and critique based on their fantasy-driven notions of how WCK *should* (that word is a theoretician giveaway btw) be done. Then "debate" whether "theoretically" that clip was good or bad, etc. It's nonsense.

Boxers who really fight also love clips. They learn from film clips of other boxers. One world champ watched the clip of another fighter hundreds of times to discover a strategy that allowed him to win over that fighter. He noticed that during a certain punch, the champ dropped his shoulder by just one inch and he used that fact to defeat the guy. All real athletes watch clips of others who are good or better.

Why someone wants a clip of Terrence is that maybe all your talk is hot air and your fighting is worse than theirs and your training is not the 100% you say. One man's 100% might be another man's 20%. Some people's chi sau is more violent than some people's supposed real fight sparring training because their chi sau might be a real fight but they only label it chi sau.

You need a good balance of forms, drills, fighting, theory , analysis etc. No one can tell you what that balance should be. It depends on what you have got and where your mind is at.

The real fighters fight in wars, fight on the streets, fight in jails etc. The next class of real fighters are the professionals who box and fight in mixed martial arts competitions for all to see, judge and criticize. This kind of fighting requires the most accurate technical skill but is missing a lot of elements that go into real fighting where there are no rules of any sort. The rules in real fighting are kill or be killed and eventually you get killed. The next class are the people who compete in all the other kinds of martial arts tournaments. After that you have people who just train to fight but they are not fighting no matter how intensive they think they and their friends fight. Fighters can be plugged into a continuous spectrum with dancing at one end and real fighting at the other. Some people make it to the top of the spectrum where they really fight and really die. Many don't want to go that far and treat the whole thing as something for health as opposed to something for harm.

[old jong]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
JR wrote:

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again?

**You're not going to "learn" anything from clips -- get your @sses out on the floor, mats, whatever, and mix it up. That's the only way. You learn and develop by doing. Theoreticians love clips, so they can sit in their armchairs and critique based on their fantasy-driven notions of how WCK *should* (that word is a theoretician giveaway btw) be done. Then "debate" whether "theoretically" that clip was good or bad, etc. It's nonsense.

We want proofs your honnor.