Cro Crop saved by Wing Chun?

[t_niehoff]

Good question TN.

First I may not have been very clear. I dont think of things in the way of use a specific technique against a specific attack. For me covering is a concept. How you go about it changes from situation to situation or moment to moment. There are some good basic covering methods but as long as you are covered it doesnt matter how you do it.

OK, I see what you mean.

I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. "Keeping your eye on the ball" is not in my view a "concept", but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement).

Drills are interesting,I try not to train or teach any drills that use any unrealistic motions or actions. So no reaching or blocking. I dont use a pak punch drill the way most do it for example. It does help with some coordination in the beginning I guess but I dont want anyone to get the idea that you can pak a jab with any kind of reasonable success factor.

We're on the same page.

[t_niehoff]

Pak Sao or a parry against jabs are very high percentage....the follow up punch commonly taught in VT is what adds the difficulty of sucess IMO.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...vesound_01.gif

I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that -- there is a reason you don't see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people). And that this guy got away with it doesn't make it high percentage (people sometimes get away with extremely low percentage shots too, and I could find many examples of them, i.e., knees as 'counters' to the shoot). One of the things about low percentage stuff is that there is a place and time where the odds of making it work go up -- when the opponent is much worse than you, when he is doing something poorly (like in your gif), etc.

[JPinAZ]

OK, I see what you mean.

I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. "Keeping your eye on the ball" is not in my view a "concept", but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement).

Really not trolling here, what approach DO they use then?
If no 'functional martial artist' uses the 'technique vs. technique' approach, but also don't use a 'conceptual' approach, what do they use?
What do you mean here?

And IMO, from my WC perspective, cro cop gave up his space/'gate concept' and got smacked (if even not a WC practitioner and didn't realize it as this). It was a simple mistake, and a costly one. He just got caught. Even if he anticipated a mid-body strike, he still didn't cover his upper gate.
I feel anyone can make this mistake, conceptual guys, 'technique' guys, clowns, etc - deppends on the awareness at that time.

I think what could have also possibly saved him, besides having his hands up, would have been something more rudmentary as changing the range so the kick was much less effective (stepping in, back etc). But, of course, it's hard to say not having been the one in the ring. And yeah, he did look like he was out of his element!

Jonathan

[JPinAZ]

I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that -- there is a reason you don't see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people). And that this guy got away with it doesn't make it high percentage (people sometimes get away with extremely low percentage shots too, and I could find many examples of them, i.e., knees as 'counters' to the shoot). One of the things about low percentage stuff is that there is a place and time where the odds of making it work go up -- when the opponent is much worse than you, when he is doing something poorly (like in your gif), etc.

There's a big difference between seeing things used at low percentage and things not working at low percentage.
Just because someone doesn't see things used that much in whatever 'arena' you 'see things', it doesn't mean they can't be and aren't used effectively at a high percentage.

Maybe the reason you're just not seeing them used very often (effective OR otherwise) is because they are not a focus of training for the people you've 'seen'. If people aren't training it, you won't see it.
If I watch boxers fight on the street, I'm not going to see them use many kicks or BJJ. Not because they aren't effective, but maybe because they are just not part of thier fight training.

FWIW, most UFC fights I've seen on TV, the only defense I've really seen used at a 'high percentage' is moving away, covering up or none (just trading punches). from my POV, none of these are the 'smartest' way to defend. I see this used to a high percentage all the time. Doesn't mean it's the most 'effective' way by any means.

[Knifefighter]

FWIW, most UFC fights I've seen on TV, the only defense I've really seen used at a 'high percentage' is moving away, covering up or none (just trading punches). from my POV, none of these are the 'smartest' way to defend. I see this used to a high percentage all the time. Doesn't mean it's the most 'effective' way by any means.

What do you think the most effective way would be?

[Knifefighter]

OF COURSE....EVERY GOOD FIGHTER...will practice and drill SPECIFIC responses to specific situations....ie.- you shoot...AND I SPRAWL. (okay...now let's try that again. And again).

Hmmm, good point...

Terrence?

[anerlich]

I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach.

BJJ as espoused by a number of elite practitioners is pretty much about "I try A. If he counters A with B, I do C. If C doesn't work, I try D. If he does E, I ..."

Eddie Bravo's new book is all about this approach. I've heard John Will and JJ Machado advocate much the same thing.

"Flow with the go" is good for beginners, and occasionally to keep training fun. But most coaches are telling you to drop that approach and work on tactics and strategies PDQ.

I don't know if chess is a sport, but the same thing certainly applies there.

[JPinAZ]

What do you think the most effective way would be?

Well, to get into this, I would have to explain a LOT of WC principals, concepts, theories, etc. Now, if that isn't troll bait on this forum I don't know what is.

The answer really depends on the situation and changes from instant to instant. If I give you one example for one situation, it wouldn't necessarily work for another situation. So, you'd have to be more specific in your question.

Basically, I'll tell you what I would NOT do. I would not just 'cover up' when someone is trying to enter with a flurry of punches. I wouldn't just step back out of range whenever someone tries to enter my space with a probing jab (great examples of this: the latest arlofski fight, or the one between sanchez and koscheck). Always running away from attacks might be 'safe'defense, but it doesn't win a fight either. Now this might work if you are trying to 'avoid' a fight..

And I surely wouldn't attempt to just trade punchers with a guy staning in front of me in rage to hit me with a punch. Would you?
This to me sounds like lucky fighting at it's finest.

[anerlich]

Hmmm, good point...

Agreed.

John Will also advocates the development of what he calls IA's or immediate actions, standard responses to the opponent's movements. "He stands in my closed guard, I underhook his leg", that sort of thing.

[Edmund]

Pak Sao for me is damm near impossible/much less percentage with gloves on, so when i spar with anything over 8oz fingerless im a bit more like how you mention...
Using the forearm etc....

I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that -- there is a reason you don't see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people).

Pak sao is low percentage now? Maybe you guys haven't watched a lot of fights.
Punches are parried all the time. It's one of the few workable defences against punches.

LOL. I don't think it's that hard.
The "trick" is to put your hand between the opponent's fist and your face.

Unless you have a gigantic head or baby hands it's not that much area to cover.

[Edmund]

What do you think the most effective way would be?

MT 101:
Lateral movement.
Tie them up.
Knee them.

[hunt1]

Victor good analogy to music. I agree you must have a way for teaching things and you need drills etc. One of wing chun stengths from my pov is learning to use both hands at the same time with each hand performing a different function. I cant think of anyway to learn this other than chi sao.. For me it has always been a struggle to teach people how to fight as fast as possiible and to teach wing chun at the same time. For me for example i believe you have to teach the wing chun body mechanics to teach how to fight with wing chun. At the same time some drills etc teach unrealistic combat methods or not very good methods.

I always try to teach a drill or a technique like bong sau or bong lop and then try to teach how to use it in a fight at the same time. It is a work in progress for me. I am always open for suggestions.

[hunt1]

Edmund a pak sau against a jab drill for you. Try it and then tell me what you think of a pak sau as a primary defense against a jab.

Stand with your back to a wall to prevent changing distance . I recommend headgear with a faceguard, have the jabber reach out his arm so that his fist goes to the depth of your eye. Punches from ****her away cant hurt you or cant even reach the target so practice against them is not needed. Now without changing distance by either of you and that is hard. The jabber throws full power jabs without turning his shoulder. If he uses a shoulder turn then just measure the starting position with the turn. have him do 10 straight fast full power jabs. How many does your pak sau stop before contact with the face mask. Then have him throw 10 jabs at different angles then 10 more including a jab hook. Everytime your mask or headgear is hit is a failure of the pak to stop the jab. Now repeat except use a fook sau instead of a pak.

Unless you are superhuman you will find what everyone who has ever done this has found as the jabs change from simple to angles and then complex with the jab hook your number of interceptions falls. use a fook sau and no drop off.

Next if you are using a pak you are using only the area of your hand to stop a jab. A fook provides the area of your hand and forearm. you can cover with the foof the pak requires pin point target.

Sure you can parry lots of punches. many punches that you can parry are thrown from a non threating range. When you are in a range where you will require dental work the pak wont protect your teeth the way a fook will.

[Edmund]

Unless you are superhuman you will find what everyone who has ever done this has found as the jabs change from simple to angles and then complex with the jab hook your number of interceptions falls. use a fook sau and no drop off.

Hunt1,

I don't agree with the point that you're making.

By creating a false scenario where you *MUST* use pak sao even when not appropriate, you've taken the technique out of its context.

The pak sao is good for certain angles. A hook is not really a good one to use a pak sao on because it's circular. (I'm not sure why a fook sao would be good for a hook actually.)

When the opponent *uses* a different angle you must adjust with the appropriate different technique or adjust the angle itself. That doesn't make the pak sao any lower percentage. It's not the answer to every situation and I didn't suggest it was.

You seem to suggest the fook sao is the answer to every situation and I'm a little dubious.

Parrying the punch is seen in many arts and many fights - Gonzaga/Crocop even. Crocop was parrying quite a LOT of Gonzaga's punches during the standup periods.

Fook sao you don't see so much.

Next if you are using a pak you are using only the area of your hand to stop a jab. A fook provides the area of your hand and forearm. you can cover with the foof the pak requires pin point target.

I believe my point was that you don't nead a large area. Your head is only so large (hopefully). You only need to ensure your pak sao is protecting that area which doesn't require much accuracy at all.

[Mr Punch]

Good to see so many informative and civil posts for a change,except for Punch and his catty snide comments

Apologies, I didn't realize what you were getting at at all... and we have so many tech vs tech BS discussions which just degenerate into lineage flame wars.

but he may have learned his wing chun in a sorority house.

Interesting, but no. I learned from Sam Kwok and others in his org, who I thought was your sifu... My wing chun is no longer pure Kwok - it has developed as I moved, and picked up more from other lines, and MMA and whatnot, but essentially I think of it as basically Kwok's org's.

I was looking for concept instead of technique since for me technique is adaptable to the situation. There is no one way to do something. What ever saves my teeth is correct at the time.

Completely agreed.

My first suggestion, which is simply crowding, is in my mind a very important and very basic WC concept (and before any of the realism police here call me on it, I don't mean it's just a WC concept!). It's perfect for clinch and takedown/tackle too (at least the way I learned the tackle: being from very close range, not a big dive).

In my Wing Chun and that is all I am referring too. We cover we do not block. Cro Crop dropped his elbow either because he was trying to block the kick or possible as TN suggested to defend a take down. It is clear he was responding to the motion of the leg. This is a clear example of why we cover and never try to block. A block is at best an educated guess. Cro Crop guessed wrong. If he covered the side the kick was attacking instead he never would have dropped his arms.

OK, I agree with the concept, but I've always found this a bit of a strange term... how do you cover the whole of one side with your arm...?

I know that question makes me sound simple and a newb, and I have the answer through my full-contact sparring, but humour me.

Often, I think people aren't really sure what they mean by cover, or how it varies from moving your arm to 'cover' another part of your side (otherwise known as "blocking"!) - not accusing you here, Hunt.