To the anti-theoretician vigilantes ... I spit upon you

[Knifefighter]

My point regarding getting old was this - martial arts / combat sports (MMA/UFC) that rely on physcial attributes (strength, conditioning, speed) are not as "good" as those that rely on body mechanics (structure) and strategy/footwork (superior position).

Despite how the theoretical non-fighters would like fighting to be, the fact is that all fighting takes physical attributes such as strength, conditioning, and speed.

Theoretical non-fighters also like to think that their theoretical systems somehow have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the more realistically applied combat systems. The fact of the matter is that the latter actually have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the theoretical systems.

[Knifefighter]

"BTW, I was talking about the low single, not a standard single." (Dale)


***WELL THE ANSWER I gave earlier still pretty much applies (mixing some wing chun and/or sprawls, etc...as there is no one single answer)...

But if we want to just mention a wing chun-only type response to a low single - I would drop the knee of the leg being attacked right to the floor while stuffing his head with the gum sao (ie.- like a stiff arm in football)...and start punching with the other hand.

Of course you (the wing chun guy) would have to be "on time" with this (before he gets a chance to pull, lift, or bring the rest of his body weight into play).

Otherwise, you better sprawl.

Since the hand is behind the heel and the shoulder is pushing into the shin, the low single requires you to turn away from your opponent (trying to remain facing forward will always result in being taken down). I'm guessing this is not a WC principle and is why I gave him props for having the instinct to override his training.

[nschmelzer]

"Despite how the theoretical non-fighters would like fighting to be, the fact is that all fighting takes physical attributes such as strength, conditioning, and speed." (Knifefighter)

Agreed. I did not say othewise.

"Theoretical non-fighters also like to think that their theoretical systems somehow have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the more realistically applied combat systems. The fact of the matter is that the latter actually have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the theoretical systems." (Knifefighter)

Is this a fact? What makes it a fact (other than you saying it)? What are these "better mechanics, strategy and footwork"? What "more realistically applied combat system" are you talking about?

Look. What I think you are really saying is that most WC guys can't fight (and presumably you can). So why don't you go to a WC gym and have some fun man-handling those guys - and let your fists do the talking instead of your keyboard fingers? I am sure most of us would appreciate a break from your backhanded comments against WC.

Let's try to salvage this thread (your insults to WC are getting boring). Personally, I think the WC elbow driven punch is better than the boxing shoulder punch because it allows for controlling the center, springs up from the ground without going through the shoulder (ground, foot, knee, hip, elbow, fist), is faster than shoulder punches when thrown in a series. I will concede that the shoulder punch can have a lot of power, and be effective, as a result of the body/hips twisting. I will also concede that the shoulder punch has a slightly longer range. So why do you think the mechanics of MMA fighters is better than WC?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I see what you're getting at....yeah...if you secured it the way you described - then you've got to go with the wrestling principle of turning away from it.

Now assuming that this was the instance wherein Rahsun said that "he was just following wing chun principles"...(and I highly suspect that it was that instance)...in response to your props and comment that that was an advanced wrestling technique of escape...

then we have another misunderstanding - and another opportunity for you to learn some more about the entire wing chun spectrum. You see, in this wing chun system that Rahsun has trained in (William Cheung's TWC)...we will often use escape or avoidance routes that are different than other wing chun systems - in that often we WON'T turn so as to face our centerline to where the attack is coming from....

we sometimes choose instead to move completely away by disengaging at an angle - and not by facing head on.

It's part of what William Cheung calls working on the CENTRAL LINE (and not the middle-of-the-body centerline).

[t_niehoff]

I think what you are missing is, YOU are the one saying traditional training doesn't work and that it didn't work for YOU once YOU put it to the test (that you couldn't make your WC work against these 'modern fighters'). And that is why you are now looking at 'modern day fighters' and how they train and adopting it for yourself, correct?
(or do I have it all wrong?)

You are wrong.

I am saying that the "traditional" way of training isn't particularly effective for anyone. If it was particularly effective, we would expect to see some people who just using that sort of training achieve good results -- which means being able to hold their own against good people in fighting. We don't see that. And if you disagree, that this evidence exists, please share it. Where are these really good fighters that have gotten that way just using the traditional model of training? Where? Only in stories or legends. But if we look at the training methods that have proved effective -- the ones proven fighters use -- we see that they are training a certain way, and very differently than traditional people.

Well, then wouldn't YOU be able to show some proof of how the new 'modern ways of training' from 'proven fighters' has worked for you where the traditional CMA training did not? Can you show how you drew that comparrion, or even the end results?
Can you show how it worked for you by posting a few video clips like you ask - what would that hurt?

Forget about WCK for a moment and what you believe is good or bad training. Just think about training to be a good fighter and what it takes. We can see that for ourselves readily by looking at really good *proven* fighters and the sorts of things they do, regardless of their style or art or method. If it works for them, why wouldn't it work for WCK? Do you think WCK is somehow different than any other athletic activity? It's the same approach you'd use if you wanted to know how to be a good basketball player -- look at people in the NBA and not people who have never been on the court. Is this so f*cking hard to understand?

My personal training and approach to WCK isn't the issue. But, if for some reason how I personally train or what I can do is of some interest to you, then you make the effort and come visit me. If you want to see my WCK that is the price. If you don't care or don't want to make the effort, I could care less. But get over your sense of entitlement. I'm not on this forum to prove how good, tough, etc. I am. I've repeatedly said I don't consider myself to be particularly great. And that's because I've trained with people who were. If you want to see them, I'll be more than happy when you visit me to take you to some places here in St. Louis where you can spar with guys who have fought in the UFC, IFL, etc. And after you do that, you can explain to them why WCK is "a superior art", how it is "the most effective and efficient fighting art", and how the traditional training method produces such good results

But you say: 'I have experienced what works better than traditional training' and that 'how could traditional training work better than what madern day ways are producing if there is not proof - so prove me wrong!'
Do you realize how this sounds? Just because YOU could not prove it for yourself, the burden is now on the world to prove it to you - and by way of video no less

Don't put words into my mouth. Any and all training methods need to be justified by results. We can see for ourselves very easily the results -- high levels of skill -- obtained by modern fighters through their training. We can also listen to sports scientists tell us research (evidence) has shown are the most effective ways to train. Do we ignore these people? So do we continue to do forms because we may "like" them or because that's how WCK has been taught or because our sifu told us they had value when the fact that good modern fighters get that way without them and that sport scientists say that this is not a very good way to learn and develop motor skills? Or is the answer to drone on about how I should really put a video of me up on Youtube?

On the other hand, where are the results of traditionally trained fighters? Where? Offering me stories and legends isn't proof -- because stories and legends can be false. I am asking for evidence we can see for ourselves and evaluate. If this sort of training works well, what is the problem provding proof that it does?

So who should I listen to, the people like the fighters, the fight trainers, and the scientists who consistently express one view or the oppostion, the traditional guys, who can't offer any evidene to support their view?

Could it also be a case of 'how' or 'what' you trained that you are calling 'traditional training' not being the same as others here? Or does your limited experience encompass how ALL WC people train?
Or is it possible that maybe it's just an indivual thing, and it was just YOU that couldn't make it work? That's not such a bad thing to admit either, if there is no ego involved... ahh... but it 'must be the traditional training' right?

Again, you are trying to make it personal to me.

If WCK people train like modern fighters do, then they will develop fighting skills. If they don't, then they won't develop much in the way of fighting skill. How do I know? Because we can see that same pattern in every martial art: that skill comes from quality sparring, and the amount of quality sparring directly relates to a person's skill level. You can see that in all proven fighters. So if you disagree with that, tell me who is a proven good fighter that hasn't developed their fighting skill through sparring with good people?

You do realize that there are a good majority of people here all asking/saying the same things about how you talk/act/behave here? Is it possible maybe you are are the one not getting it? How can these people all be misunderstanding, yet you seem to know better? Maybe you are not truely hearing what they are saying, because it seems to be the same thing over and over..

I've asked you a bunch of questions, please think before you reply

Jonathan

I understand some people here keep asking me the same questions, and I keep saying the same thing: they are missing my point. They, like you, want to believe that their traditional training works and works well. And so you say "prove that my belief is wrong." But I have. The proof is in the lack of results. I am saying that there is not one instance of evidence showing that someone traditionally trained and not adopting the more modern training methods that has achieved any significant proven fighting skill level. Just like no one has produced a Bigfoot. I can't prove the nonexistence of Bigfoot except by showing there is no reliable proof that one does exist. But it is very easy to refute my contention, that either Bigfoot exists or some traditionally-trained great fighter exists: produce one for us all to see.

[t_niehoff]

"BTW, I was talking about the low single, not a standard single." (Dale)


***WELL THE ANSWER I gave earlier still pretty much applies (mixing some wing chun and/or sprawls, etc...as there is no one single answer)...

But if we want to just mention a wing chun-only type response to a low single - I would drop the knee of the leg being attacked right to the floor while stuffing his head with the gum sao (ie.- like a stiff arm in football)...and start punching with the other hand.

Of course you (the wing chun guy) would have to be "on time" with this (before he gets a chance to pull, lift, or bring the rest of his body weight into play).

Otherwise, you better sprawl.

Since Victor accuses me of never giving any technical WCK "answers", here's mine: My WCK way to deal with a low single is not to give him the (opportunity to) low-single in the first place by controlling range and position, and if I lose that, to pre-empt any shoot by acting first. If that fails, and he gets it, then I'm on to a different game (trying to pull guard, since I've found sprawling on a lowsingle problematic).

And, btw, on the outside I typically move with my shoulders forward and hips back (with shoulder/knee roughly on the same plane) and that tends to discourage low singles.

[unkokusai]

And, btw, on the outside I typically move with my shoulders forward and hips back (with shoulder/knee roughly on the same plane) and that tends to discourage low singles.

...........why?

[Knifefighter]

Is this a fact? What makes it a fact (other than you saying it)?

Because these systems are used all the time in full on competitive situations. As with all human athletic activities, competitions require that the very best methods are used.

What are these "better mechanics, strategy and footwork"?
What "more realistically applied combat system" are you talking about?

Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA

I think the WC elbow driven punch is better than the boxing shoulder punch because it allows for controlling the center, springs up from the ground without going through the shoulder (ground, foot, knee, hip, elbow, fist), is faster than shoulder punches when thrown in a series. I will concede that the shoulder punch can have a lot of power, and be effective, as a result of the body/hips twisting. I will also concede that the shoulder punch has a slightly longer range. So why do you think the mechanics of MMA fighters is better than WC?

You just answered your own question- power and range.

The fact is, when it comes to unarmed striking in real situations, power and range almost always trump speed. That is why the larger opponent has the advantage over the equally skilled smaller opponent.

Power and range are hugely important... this is why boxers, Muay Thai fighters and MMA fighters use don't use "elbow" punches, although that type of punching is generally faster.

[Knifefighter]

...........why?

That's a great way to GET a low single (watch John Smith's old wrestling matches for perfect examples of this), aw well as prevent one, since your head is way forward of the legs (assuming he is talking about the horizontal plane).


I don't think it is exactly a stance you would want to take in a fight, however (and certainly not one you could use any WC techniques with).

[Knifefighter]

As far as the WC "answers" to the low single leg, that's exactly the sign of a theoretical non-fighter... trying to find the anwers from within your system (which doesn't even have low single leg attacks in the first place), when you can find the proven answers simply by looking into the methods that incorporate that technique and regularly defend against it.

Why in the heck one would limit himself like this when the very best answers are already right there for the taking from systems that already have this technique as part of their arsenal? Systems that have not only figured out the counter, but the counter to the counter and the counter to the counter to the counter.

[unkokusai]

That's a great way to GET a low single (watch John Smith's old wrestling matches for perfect examples of this), aw well as prevent one, since your head is way forward of the legs (assuming he is talking about the horizontal plane).

I really don't see that as in any way preventing a low single as the set up is going to involve getting you to step with that lead leg and shoot just as your weight is coming down on it.

Lean too far forward and you'll get headsnapped through the floor.

The most effective takedown defense is being on the offense and/or being able to read your opponent's attempt at setting up his shot and anticipating his move.

Of course if someone like John Smith wants to get a low single on you, he is. He just is.

[Liddel]

Sorry, ive been away for a few days and i need to back track for this....

If you don't believe me, try this: play your resisting chi sao and have your partner, at the sound of some trigger, just start trying to hit you, grab you, kick you, etc. like a fight, with real intensity, nonstop, and not trying to play chi sao (just go ape****). Try "sticking" when your partner is trying not to stick, when he is doing those things. When you get a genuinely resisitng opponent who is doing that, it won't "look" or "feel" like chi sao, it will "look and "feel" like fighting. So when you do chi sao, you are moving and behaving unlike you will in a fight. That is not effective training.

What a bunch of BS.
This has happened to me several times when visiting local schools of VT. One place had me pair up with the masters senior student and when he couldnt controll me he "went ape" taking it from a friendly skill developing drill to a fight.

I blocked a punch, moved off line and smacked him in the gut which stopped him right there. Blocking the punch was sticking ! and moving and punching is ANOTHER part of VT training.

This POV Terrence would be akin to a MT fighting kicking a pad in training and when the pad holder comes in swinging wildly in an ape$hit mannor, the MT fighter would then resort to covering, punching back or clinch and knee etc....
but hold on he was training his kick and due to the distance being closed he didnt use it in this senario......

It must be a waste of training time.....

Just from your posts Terrence what you and i consider Chi Sao and its uses are very very different

[anerlich]

So they try to discredit me, call me names, etc.

This isn't so much in response in your arguments, than the fact that you repeat them over and over at ludicrous length, on every possible thread.

It's fairly natural to heckle a speaker who has made his point but then keeps hogging the microphone as if his opinion is somehow more valuable than anyone else's.

But of course, you're the forum superhero on a MISSION ...

[anerlich]

My point regarding getting old was this - martial arts / combat sports (MMA/UFC) that rely on physcial attributes (strength, conditioning, speed) are not as "good" as those that rely on body mechanics (structure) and strategy/footwork (superior position).

BJJ and most grappling arts are all about superior position, strategy, body mechanics and leverage. Like everything else, strength and conditioning will tip the odds in favor over someone with equivalent technical skill but inferior condition.

Worry about getting old when you get there. I'm 52 and not there yet. It may not be as bad or affect you as early as you seem to think it will.

[Liddel]

Because these systems are used all the time in full on competitive situations. As with all human athletic activities, competitions require that the very best methods are used.

In terms of fighting - this is narrow minded IMO KF.

Some of the "BEST METHODS" cant be used because of rules.

If you want to find the best methods look to what 'real life' guys do.
Special forces - Police officers, diplomatic protection sqads -
Of course there is alot that carries over but IME there is many more differences in thier tool box compared with compitions.

People i know in each of these fields, love TMA's but see them as hobbies and they also see MMA as a SPORT.