Footwork or retreat?

[sihing]

That demo is in a controlled environment. It wouldn't look the same if some really big guy was bent on hurting the smaller guy. We have guys here who can do many reps with 100lb barbells in each arm. During the adrenalin in a fight they could take the smaller guys punches and simply pick him up and body slam him if he stays in the middle.

Phil, if this is true (all demos are in controlled environments), I guess all of your demo/vids are subject to the same critique? The vid Graychun posted, yeah it is in a controlled environment, but the skills learned there can help a smaller guy function closer to the centerline in fighting, instead of always having to retreat or look for a big flanking advantage. Nothing works exactly like it will in training, but the attributes learned can only help one in a fight, there are no guarantee's, regardless of what your learning. Smaller guys beat bigger guys in fights all the time.

Do you suggest against a bigger guy, that you fight on the outside and give him more chances to hit you? The problem with that type of strategy is you give the bigger guy a chance to develop forward momentum, most all fighters cannot function retreating. If I am going to fight a guy much bigger than me, once I have my bearings, I would take the fight to him and try to make them retreat by attacking the COG, while striking them (At Sifu Lam's they have po pai training, where smaller guys can launch larger people with ease, making them "Fly" into the mattresses). Good body mechanics and structure can make a small person very powerful, while maintaining their ability to be quick and maneuverable. Big guys have strength but no speed, if a smaller guy has both, that is extremely dangerous and I would put my money on the smaller guy.


The strength it takes to do reps with 100lbs barbells is mostly useless in a fight if the person does not have some fighting skills and coordination to complement it, it is all relative so I do not understand why you would use an example like this. Yes, if you are facing someone bigger/stronger than you that has skills, you are in more trouble as it is here that the strength factor really kicks in, when it is combined with skill.

I'm not suggesting that a smaller person confront a bigger/stronger opponent dead on, but there are ways to use WC/VT properly without having to run away whenever great force is met. The key is to use the mechanics properly (if you have these mechanics present in your system), and timing. The thing about big guys, is that they have harder time protecting their centers, smaller guys can navigate right thru their centers if they know what they are doing. I've trained with smaller guys, at intense levels, and realized this fact. Of course the danger of just getting picked up and bear hugged is there, but it is there regardless of how you defend yourself against a bigger guy, since contact is inevitable if you choose to stay and fight rather than run. And there is also the option of low level attacks, including the groin and legs, as well as more lethal setups using eye jabs and neck hits. All people, whatever size they are, are susceptible to these types of attacks.

I ask everyone here to ask any 10yr to hit you square on in the face and see if it has no affect on you. When your life is on the line, and you have good training behind you, you can produce devastating results when need be. Yes there is an adrenalin dump, but that works both ways, your opponent may have more tolerance for pain, but so does the person defending themselves, and, thru good training gain more power and ability to do what is necessary to defend themselves. Remember the idea in self defence is not to stay in there to knock the guy out, or finish him off, but rather to survive, and get out alive.. If the odds are against me due to some physical factor (he's very large, I'm injured, I'm drunk, There's more than one, Weapons invovlved, etc etc..), I temporarily disable my opponent and run to get out alive and safe.

Retreat is part of the process, but to do so just because greater force is applied onto one is foolish. Good WC/VT practitioners can accept great force upon themselves without having to retreat or move back a great deal, while at the same time attack, as others have mentioned, the problem is not all WC/VT is the same or equal. IMO, and through my years of training TWC, it is a longer range art that fights on the outside parameter, and at a flank most of the time, so they are more likely to retreat more so than someone trained in another form of WC/VT, which operates closer in. When making comments we have to keep it within the context of what you are training in.

James

[JPinAZ]

Interesting discussion!!
James, I think you nailed it on your last post

...Sometimes the force is so great you must go back to relieve the force...

I can see this, given you already have a bridge.
As I understand WC, prior to contact, I should just occupy space with strong structure and stand my ground. We have a saying "I don't move unless I have too". Sure, stance/foot adjustments for proper facing, structure and lines of offence/deffense might be necessary, but one shouldn't have to give up thier space prior to contact. To me, it makes sense to read the energies once (if) a bridge is made and then we know what we have to do next and how/if we should move.

Maybe, if after the bridge is made and someone is collapsing my structure or entering my space, then my feet move - as my hands tell them too. (feet follow the hands) But as I see it, this is done to regain lost space or structure after a bridge is made, not prior too.

As was mentioned previouslye, one can step back prior to making contact and still have fwd energy in thier hands. But to me, they still are giving up thier space and moving away from the attack, so the fwd energy in the hands isn't doing as much good if your body is stepping away from where this fwd energy is directed. And of course, this can be made to work! But to me, it seems that this gives the opponent more time to regroup or launch a second attack easier.

And of course, fighting bigger and stronger opponents takes a different approach/strategy - maybe. But IMO, if I step away from one of these bigger guys, I just give him more room to build momentum and use his size/strength against me. Not to mention the fact I just gave him more time to maneuver and get to me.
I'd rather still stand my ground then reposition if I feel he is overpowering my structures or I can't deflect/redirect his incoming energy.

If I am concerned about his strength being greater then mine, then I am thinking from an attributes perspective. I feel with proper structure and use of timing and positioning, the larger/stronger factor doesn't really matter. Isn't this what WC is all about anyway?

[sihing]

Interesting discussion!!

James, I think you nailed it on your last post

Thanks

I can see this, given you already have a bridge.
As I understand WC, prior to contact, I should just occupy space with strong structure and stand my ground. We have a saying "I don't move unless I have too". Sure, stance/foot adjustments for proper facing, structure and lines of offence/deffense might be necessary, but one shouldn't have to give up thier space prior to contact. To me, it makes sense to read the energies once (if) a bridge is made and then we know what we have to do next and how/if we should move.

In strict WC you occupy space, giving the opponent less opportunity to hit you dead on. I can agree with your saying, less movement means economy of motion and less signs to give away to your opponent. Giving up space prior to contact is foolish as there is no reason to, I say basically attack the attack (giving back what you are recieving), this can be done with different timings (slightly before initiation, during initiation, after initiation), to put your opponent back on the defensive. If you give space you are not doing that, as you are only avoiding the attack, not attacking yourself.

Maybe, if after the bridge is made and someone is collapsing my structure or entering my space, then my feet move - as my hands tell them too. (feet follow the hands) But as I see it, this is done to regain lost space or structure after a bridge is made, not prior too.

Agreed..

As was mentioned previouslye, one can step back prior to making contact and still have fwd energy in thier hands. But to me, they still are giving up thier space and moving away from the attack, so the fwd energy in the hands isn't doing as much good if your body is stepping away from where this fwd energy is directed. And of course, this can be made to work! But to me, it seems that this gives the opponent more time to regroup or launch a second attack easier.

Giving up space is opposite of WC thinking, it is less efficient and takes away the effectiveness of the WC delivery system, which is based on moving forward or toward the center while giving pressure to their COG and with striking weapons. Like a wedge for a door, without putting pressure on it, it is useless.

And of course, fighting bigger and stronger opponents takes a different approach/strategy - maybe. But IMO, if I step away from one of these bigger guys, I just give him more room to build momentum and use his size/strength against me. Not to mention the fact I just gave him more time to maneuver and get to me.
I'd rather still stand my ground then reposition if I feel he is overpowering my structures or I can't deflect/redirect his incoming energy.

Agreed, giving them more momentum, and time to attack means less chance to overcome your opponent, pretty simple if you ask me.

If I am concerned about his strength being greater then mine, then I am thinking from an attributes perspective. I feel with proper structure and use of timing and positioning, the larger/stronger factor doesn't really matter. Isn't this what WC is all about anyway? :

This is exactly what WC is about, using the natural strengths of our bodies to produce the most effective weapon available to us. Some WC systems teach this, some don't, that why this forum has so many threads, too much variation and differences in training, concept and application.

The only true way to find out what we are all talking about is personal one to one contact, training with one another. I did this and found out what was what, the rest is history


James

[Liddel]

In the Woo System(as I cant speak of any other WCK) none of the 3 hand forms have any stepping backward. Chum Kui has a change of direction to face the attacks but not a step backward.

My VT has stepping back as a seperate stepping drill, like we see in WSLs old vid the science of infighting where he demonstrates punching while using a shuffle foward and back. Similar to the arrow horse punching with the kwan only with the normal horse... And in the weapons forms stepping back is even more evident.

I know some dont intergrate the weapons concepts into Hands and vice versa...

But IMO its important to know how to issue power and have structure whilst moving back.
Its a shame you dont focus on it more Gray im sure it would make you guys even better.

...Sometimes the force is so great you must go back to relieve the force...

Exactly Benny, sometimes your hands get crossed momentarily, sometimes if your opponents good even in a training platform like Poon Sao you lose elbow space.
I often make younger guys elbows touch thier body with good positioning leaving them with few options but to step further away gaining distance.

VT has certain maxims that we try to adhere to, but just like the purpose of BJ we need options to use when the opponent screws with those ideals in application ? Unless your never up against someone with more skill than you.

Personally, im never perfect even against younger students in training - i get tired, i make mistakes...its human.

I feel to assume youll always be able to go foward is absurd, its paramount to assuming youll never be able to be taken to the ground

one can step back prior to making contact and still have fwd energy in thier hands. But to me, they still are giving up thier space and moving away from the attack

2 things -

I feel this assumes you still have/own the space but most other styles move into the pocket when punching so your actually competing for space equally, in a sence...its already lost untill you get it back again.

You want maintain your space is a better way to say it IMO. If you dont step back or to the side maintaining your space, you may end up in a clinch and space is gone altogether. Too close is just as bad as too far away in a VT sence.

Situation is paramount - if its five guys in a park on you alone, running a good 20 meters to gain the space to turn and brace is a fair option.

there are some big fellas out there, there is one in particular at my school who bounced for many years, you do not want to step in front of his round punch!

I find letting it go - Pak Sao and duck, stepping away if hes coming in, and using a good knee stomp or side kick (right out of the dummy form - 30 to 40 or thereabouts) is effective for me....never play someone else game, pick him off and stay mobile, do not crash the center untill you've kept him busy dealing with something .....

DREW

[Phil Redmond]

Phil, if this is true (all demos are in controlled environments), I guess all of your demo/vids are subject to the same critique?
James

....Yes they are. But we do test our principles against resisting opponents in the ring and in class.

[sihing]

....Yes they are. But we do test our principles against resisting opponents in the ring and in class.

Phil,

How do you test your principles in class? Do you spar yout WC? Is this the correct test of your principles? Sparring to me isn't, as it is the application side of things. Application is up to the individual. When I defend myself or fight it is me fighting, not TWC or WSL WC, just me. You can't test your principles this way, since the test is not specific enough. The true test of your WC, is during WC training IMO. I think the situation here is that the two of us have different ideas of what WC/VT represents. When I was in TWC, my thinking was application, technique. From my research in TWC over the years and years I practiced it, application and technique was the thing GM Cheung was after as well. This is fine and dandy. Today, the WC I practice is not about application nor technique, rather it is about body mechanics and concepts. Basically the difference is this, TWC tells me how to fight, what to do when someone does this or that. WSL WC other hand trains my body to move in a certain way, it gives me physical attributes and body mechanics so that I can 1) punch hard from short distances, 2) accept force within my structure and stance, 3) move fast with interruptable footwork and short stepping, 4) take someone's balance away while striking them with punches and short kicks, attack their COG, as well as a whole bunch of other neat things. Now if you ask me what I am going to do when someone throws this punch or that kick, whatever attack, I won't be able to give you a definitive answer, simple due to the fact that I don't know. I will figure that out when the situation arises, all I do know is if you want to attack me, my first instinct is to attack you as well, chase your center, eat your space, hit you hard, and continue to do so until you are incapacitated. The insignifigant details, like tan/pak/bong/lop, this sau or that sau, are all actions to help me hit you. If the first hit doesn't finish it, the system allows for immediate follow ups, each with the equal and vicious force. The system is not unbeatable, but it is definetely something to contend with if the training is correct. That is a big IF though.


Regarding your comment about the ring, I have no concern about anyone's usage of WC in the ring, as WC is not a ring sport, nor was it ever developed for that place. It's about street survival, getting out alive when the possibility of death or serious injury is on the table. Ring fighting is a totally different situation. IMO you can adapt WC to the ring, and that is fine if that is your thing. For me it isn't and it doesn't prove a thing when someone says what they do works in that arena. The idea here on this forum I would think, is not about proving anything, it is a place for discussion and revelation, but we are very limited here because there is no physical contact. Everything you say to me is theory, and what I say to you is the same, that is until we met face to face.

James

P.S. Thanks for the invite to the school in New Jersey. If I had the coin, I would take the next flight there to see what you guys are up to, as I'm always down for stuff like that. I live in Thunder Bay, just north of Minneapolis, about a 14hr drive from TO, so can't make that seminar of yours either, thx for the invite though
Nothing personal Phil, just a difference in thinking and the way I see things now as compared to yourself.

[couch]

2 things -

I feel this assumes you still have/own the space but most other styles move into the pocket when punching so your actually competing for space equally, in a sence...its already lost untill you get it back again.

You want maintain your space is a better way to say it IMO. If you dont step back or to the side maintaining your space, you may end up in a clinch and space is gone altogether. Too close is just as bad as too far away in a VT sence.

Situation is paramount - if its five guys in a park on you alone, running a good 20 meters to gain the space to turn and brace is a fair option.

DREW

I agree here, Drew. Look at the Tony Blauer stuff. Or look at Geoff Thompson's The Fence. In a self-defense situation, I have no problems putting up my hands to occupy the centreline, but backing up while trying to de-escalate verbally. Putting my hands up and stepping back is a great way to show I'm not aggressive - right before I fire one at their head!

My 2 cents.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Personally, I have never liked sparing with another WC person. It is like fighting one's self if you know what I mean. But in fighting with people that are not WC trained, I have learned what works best for me. Being short and all.
I have found that in a real fight you may exchange back and forth until you manage to make something work. You might land a few, and you may take a few back before you get in the one that works for you. That is why it is called fighting. On the other hand, knowing that in a fight you also stand a good chance of getting your stuff beaten out of you, I have learned to back up when it is necessary. I try not to give my opponent a lot of room to maneuver, but then I can hit him from as far away as he can hit me, so I try to maintain the distance as I move with him. I use my center line to attach or defend, but so does he. And if he is coming right up my center line I just move it on him. I step off to the side and back to keep distance real. That way his center line is now off to my side and I adjust and shift to keep him directly in my own center line. He has to fight me sideways and if I am now quick enough I can rush in and control his side while I batter him. I have been able to spin a fellow completely around so that I am punching his kidneys out and stepping into the back of his knees. When you step into his knee he drops down. It is then that you unleash the dragon. I have used that so many times.
This is only when or if he comes charging in. You would never consider moving back otherwise. It is my theory that if you are defending then you have the advantage. The attacker always has to move into fortified ground.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

How do you test your principles in class? Do you spar yout WC? Is this the correct test of your principles? Sparring to me isn't, as it is the application side of things. Application is up to the individual. When I defend myself or fight it is me fighting, not TWC or WSL WC, just me. You can't test your principles this way, since the test is not specific enough. The true test of your WC, is during WC training IMO. I think the situation here is that the two of us have different ideas of what WC/VT represents. When I was in TWC, my thinking was application, technique. From my research in TWC over the years and years I practiced it, application and technique was the thing GM Cheung was after as well. This is fine and dandy. Today, the WC I practice is not about application nor technique, rather it is about body mechanics and concepts. Basically the difference is this, TWC tells me how to fight, what to do when someone does this or that. WSL WC other hand trains my body to move in a certain way, it gives me physical attributes and body mechanics so that I can 1) punch hard from short distances, 2) accept force within my structure and stance, 3) move fast with interruptable footwork and short stepping, 4) take someone's balance away while striking them with punches and short kicks, attack their COG, as well as a whole bunch of other neat things. Now if you ask me what I am going to do when someone throws this punch or that kick, whatever attack, I won't be able to give you a definitive answer, simple due to the fact that I don't know. I will figure that out when the situation arises, all I do know is if you want to attack me, my first instinct is to attack you as well, chase your center, eat your space, hit you hard, and continue to do so until you are incapacitated. The insignifigant details, like tan/pak/bong/lop, this sau or that sau, are all actions to help me hit you. If the first hit doesn't finish it, the system allows for immediate follow ups, each with the equal and vicious force. The system is not unbeatable, but it is definetely something to contend with if the training is correct. That is a big IF though.

I do regard the best way to test a martial art is to fight. And in no way should any martial tell you how to fight. Don't live in a box is the saying at our school. We give people attributes and alternatives and they use what works for them. My C is also about body mechanics. I don't think there is a fighter that doesn't have body mechanics

Regarding your comment about the ring, I have no concern about anyone's usage of WC in the ring, as WC is not a ring sport, nor was it ever developed for that place. It's about street survival, getting out alive when the possibility of death or serious injury is on the table. Ring fighting is a totally different situation. IMO you can adapt WC to the ring, and that is fine if that is your thing. For me it isn't and it doesn't prove a thing when someone says what they do works in that arena. The idea here on this forum I would think, is not about proving anything, it is a place for discussion and revelation, but we are very limited here because there is no physical contact. Everything you say to me is theory, and what I say to you is the same, that is until we met face to face.

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just stating how we train. Again, the best way to train a martial art is to test it against resisting opponents from different disciplines who are trying to hurt you. There are two ways to achieve this. Either spar or get into street fights. Now I know for self defense there is no need to spar. Anyone can get hit upside the head with a bottle, bat, or whatever by someone who doesn't train. I'm not knocking your opinion. I just love the rush of the combat

[sihing]

I do believe the best way to test a martial art is to fight. And in no way should any martial art tell you how to fight. Don't live in a box is the saying at our school. We give people attributes and alternatives and they use what works for them. My WC is also about body mechanics. I don't think there is a fighter that doesn't have body mechanics



I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just stating how we train. Again, the best way to train a martial art is to test it against resisting opponents from different disciplines who are trying to hurt you. There are two ways to achieve this. Either spar or get into street fights. Now I know for self defense there is no need to spar. Anyone can get hit upside the head with a bottle, bat, or whatever by someone who doesn't train. I'm not knocking your opinion. I just love the rush of the combat

If I want to fight and test my skills for some egoic reason, then I would agree with you. Go out and fight other fighters from other systems. Then after some wins and losses, evaluate what needs to been improved and do it all over again. Sounds like a endless cycle of chasing a false belief if you ask me

This here is the difference between the two of us. I train because I enjoy the process of learning WC/VT. I would have to admit that constitutes 95% of why I continue to train in the art. If I didn't enjoy it, then why continue to do it? The self defence aspect of it was developed years and years ago. I imagine if someone hasn't learned it within the first few years they either have no talent or have a lousy instructor.

As for fighting, which is a comparison of skill in the art of combat, it is ultimately a sign of egotisical behaviour (if I can physically dominate you, then you will be submissive to me). This is different to self defence, which is totally about surviving a surprise attack.

The way I look at it, if I want to "test" my Wing Chun, I will do so against other WC people (I'm talking specifics here). WC to me is a training philosophy, a way of developing skills and attributes designed to give me an advantage in combat, plus a fun activity to participate in. Fighting is different, as now you are trying to pit your combative skills against someone else with similar abilities to test manhood & satisfy the ego. All I'm interested in is developing WC skills. I think we should all be honest here, unless you are getting into fights on a daily basis, why kid ourselves into believing that is why we are training, LOL.

I highly recommend, if you feel a rush from combat that you ask yourself why? Do you have a need to prove something to yourself or others? Ask yourself, do you really want to hurt the person in front of you, or are you doing it for alternative reasons? For me, if I had those feelings I would look deep inside to ask why. As human beings, I would think the thought or undertaking of incapasitating someone else for the pleasure/love of it would be something most would find very disturbing. If I remember correctly, GM Cheung himself said that once someone has the developed the skills of fighting or self defence, the need to prove oneself should be gone. Is this really true?

James

[anerlich]

I don't think there is a fighter that doesn't have body mechanics

I think if anything most WC guys concentrate too much on structure and body mechanics, to the point where they get in the way, rather than help, in self-defense. I've yet to meet a WC guy who couldn't talk all four legs off a chair about structure, elbow position, body mechanics, gates, lines, yadyadayada.

James, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you got dudded on TWC by Lewadny, and that you agree on some levels at least. Hard to take the subtext of your statements any other way. The straw man arguments you make about TWC do not match my experience, nor Phil's, apparently.

It's about street survival, getting out alive when the possibility of death or serious injury is on the table.

Most of us saw Ernie's recent fine vid on that subject too. The same stuff Geoff Thompson and Sandford Strong among others have been saying for decades. Jeez, I've had that "Surviving violent crime" link in my .sig for as long as I've been on the forum. Arguably, martial skill is one of the least important attributes in surviving violent crime situations.

AS it's illegal and possibly dangerous and fatal to indulge in regular street fights to test our stuff, many of us still resort to some sort of practice fighting with rules, limits and protection to ensure our stuff works. Good luck to you if you've found another way, but I'm sceptical.

Or look at Geoff Thompson's The Fence. In a self-defense situation, I have no problems putting up my hands to occupy the centreline, but backing up while trying to de-escalate verbally. Putting my hands up and stepping back is a great way to show I'm not aggressive - right before I fire one at their head!

No probs with that tactic, but that's not the way the Fence is designed in my experience. The fence is exactly that, setting a boundary that the guy must not pass. Your hands are up, while you try to defuse the situation verbally, so that hopefully the guy senses he can't successfully king hit you, or if he does you can and will then defend, and that you won't be intimidated. If he touches the fence more than once, you push him away, both hands, STAND YOUR GROUND, and bark commands at him - stay away, don't f***ing move, etc. to hit him with the adrenal dump. Either he'll (hopefully) back off (flight), usually hurling insults from out of range, or it's on (fight), so you need to be ready. You could argue that this is a version of man sao, asking hand, in a WC context.

If he's adrenalised and you back away, he WILL chase you down, millions of years of evolution say so. So you'll be fighting.

That might be a good tactic for you, but I see that as different from The Fence.

[WoodenYummy]

I just want to say thanks to all of you for offering your insights. I really appreciate hearing from so many varying perspectives on this matter. I am still realtively new at this, and very eager to learn as much as I can. I have the utmost respect for all of you for offering up your opinions & differences. Much appreciated. I understand that situations will vary, and that ideally I do want to occupy the centerline, I guess I was ultimately trying to get a feel for who does & does not use this "back & off the line" concept and how frequently. I have some difference of opinion with some of the comments made, but hey, I haven't seen you guys, maybe you are a much bigger guy than I am imagining And when I brought this up, I should have been more clear, I am not suggesting that we are taught to retreat at our kwoon, its more like a move to clear your self from the path of something big, but we are certainly taught to follow that energy and use it to our advantage. Typically if a BIG round punch is coming through, we would step back and off the line, only to follow the punch as it passes with a Pak Sao or something and attempt to pin that elbow while attacking from the blindside. Anyway, thanks to all of you once again! I am pleased to see all the differences without the politics rearing their ugly heads! WING CHUN IS THE SHIZNIT!

[Phil Redmond]

If I want to fight and test my skills for some egoic reason, then I would agree with you. Go out and fight other fighters from other systems. Then after some wins and losses, evaluate what needs to been improved and do it all over again. Sounds like a endless cycle of chasing a false belief if you ask me

This here is the difference between the two of us. I train because I enjoy the process of learning WC/VT. I would have to admit that constitutes 95% of why I continue to train in the art. If I didn't enjoy it, then why continue to do it? The self defence aspect of it was developed years and years ago. I imagine if someone hasn't learned it within the first few years they either have no talent or have a lousy instructor.

As for fighting, which is a comparison of skill in the art of combat, it is ultimately a sign of egotisical behaviour (if I can physically dominate you, then you will be submissive to me). This is different to self defence, which is totally about surviving a surprise attack.

The way I look at it, if I want to "test" my Wing Chun, I will do so against other WC people (I'm talking specifics here). WC to me is a training philosophy, a way of developing skills and attributes designed to give me an advantage in combat, plus a fun activity to participate in. Fighting is different, as now you are trying to pit your combative skills against someone else with similar abilities to test manhood & satisfy the ego. All I'm interested in is developing WC skills. I think we should all be honest here, unless you are getting into fights on a daily basis, why kid ourselves into believing that is why we are training, LOL.

I highly recommend, if you feel a rush from combat that you ask yourself why? Do you have a need to prove something to yourself or others? Ask yourself, do you really want to hurt the person in front of you, or are you doing it for alternative reasons? For me, if I had those feelings I would look deep inside to ask why. As human beings, I would think the thought or undertaking of incapasitating someone else for the pleasure/love of it would be something most would find very disturbing. If I remember correctly, GM Cheung himself said that once someone has the developed the skills of fighting or self defence, the need to prove oneself should be gone. Is this really true?

James

You're assuming that I love the sparring/fighting due to ego. You are wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

[sihing]

I think if anything most WC guys concentrate too much on structure and body mechanics, to the point where they get in the way, rather than help, in self-defense. I've yet to meet a WC guy who couldn't talk all four legs off a chair about structure, elbow position, body mechanics, gates, lines, yadyadayada.

I honestly believe the opposite, lol. Most of what I see online and thru personal experience with other lineages, the practitioners lack structure and body mechanics, but to each their own, some see trash, some see gold The key here is not be be a slave to the process, as it is only a training system. One should apply it as needed and with their own flavor. The problem is people get stuck in the process, thinking the training is the application, so therefore they stagnate and discontinue progression.

James, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you got dudded on TWC by Lewadny, and that you agree on some levels at least. Hard to take the subtext of your statements any other way. The straw man arguments you make about TWC do not match my experience, nor Phil's, apparently.

You could be quite right there. I just find it interesting that in 94' and on film, that GM Cheung appointed Lewadny as North American Head. I think it is fair to say, since there is little video footage available and no one here besides me (there are other lurkers here that could testify to his abilities as well, but they lurk) that can testify to Lewadny's skills, that no one can say definitively if he was dupped or not. All I know is this, 1) He was certified Sifu Level by GM Cheung back in 87', 2) Back in 90' in my presence, was told by Polish Instructor that he was recommended to teach international students by Aussie Headquarters, 3) Upon personal training with US TWC students in 90' during GM Cheung's 50th Bday, the skills taught, shown and demonstrated by the top instructors there where no better than Lewadny's, in fact other instructors came to him for advice.

What I have realized over the years is that my first Sifu improved upon (IMO) and adapted to his students what he had learned from GM Cheung in Aussie land back in 86-87'. Suffice it to say, I have my own ability to evaluate who's who in TWC land, and so far besides the GM himself, I haven't seen any who match Sifu B's skills, but I could be wrong as feeling is really believing The man was a Martial Arts genius IMO, and I still have great respect for his skills as a WC man and as a Martial Artist. But all of this is just talk and I am no longer a part of that organization so it is of no matter to me what people think of the man. If I want to really find out what someone is all about skill wise I would visit with them first hand, that way there are no if, and's or but about it. I recommend that you do that Andrew before you comment on whether somone was duped or not

James

[sihing]

You're assuming that I love the sparring/fighting due to ego. You are wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Phil,

How do you define ego? I define ego as a entity of the mind that produces a false identity, of superiority, of being special, of having to be different from common mankind. I find it interesting that anyone that admits to loving fighting is lacking in ego, but to each their own (just to clear the record, I feel the thrill of combat as well, that is why I avoid it at all costs.) If I told you that all of us are special, all of us are common, and that anything and everything you do, is not a reflection of who you are, would you believe that?

Good journey's dude, I only wish you the best in the future and in health

James