Where is the WCK?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Common sense awareness is, regrettably, not that common.

[duende]

Simultaneous strike and Defense.

1. The notion of Simultaneouss in Eastern thought is more accurately interpreted by a grander scale of perspective.

For instance... think of a handful of rocks being dropped to the ground. They all hit at different times in the micro-cosmic few, but the overall macro-cosmic event would still be considered one beat.

2. Simultaneous Attack And Defenseis also a facing tool... IE to prevent long arm/ short arm.. or creating a self-inflicted "live" side/ "dead" side scenario.

3. Simultaneous Attack and Defense is also a range tool, and is part of knowing the timeframe is safest to strike. Meaning a safety belt of a bridge has already been established.

Therefore in application... yes. The bridge, block, or covering of space comes first, before the strike. But this is a very small window, and in terms of strategy and timing the strike and the block are related. Hence the term... simultaneous strike and defense.


It is not just blindly hit and block at the exact same time.

Getting caught up in terminology in this case, has lead to a misunderstanding of the meanings behind the terms.

Safety belt (bridge or time on your side) first.. then strike.




On another note:

We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually.

What we do teach is the importance of knowing the differences between MMA timeframes, strategies, and body mechanics, and those that function within WC.

As a disregard for these understandings, and the mixing up of the two can lead to WC tools and strategies being used at the wrong time and failing.

This is not to say that they can't be used together. Just one has to know how to mix them with out compromising the effectiveness of either.

This is why we refer to MMA as being "outside the box" and WC as being "inside the box", but yet both being two sides of the same coin. There's much more to it obviously, but that's a whole other thread.

Good training to all.

[m1k3]

What we do teach is the importance of knowing the differences between MMA timeframes, strategies, and body mechanics, and those that function within WC.

Good training to all.

I don't understand what the difference is between an MMA timeframe vs a WC timeframe. I don't even know what an MMA timeframe is. Could you please explain? THX.

[t_niehoff]

Simultaneous strike and Defense.

1. The notion of Simultaneouss in Eastern thought is more accurately interpreted by a grander scale of perspective.

That is a dodge.

Look, "simultaneous" is an english word, and has a precise meaning -- to occur at the same time. If you had some "eastern idea" that means something else, then you wouldn't use that english word to express that idea.

And, btw, lien siu die da, literally "ink defense to bring in offense,"does not mean simultaneously blocking and striking.

For instance... think of a handful of rocks being dropped to the ground. They all hit at different times in the micro-cosmic few, but the overall macro-cosmic event would still be considered one beat.

Hmmm, let's see if I can express that in english . . . you simultaneously drop a handful of rocks, yet they hit the ground at different times (apparently defying the laws of gravity!).

2. Simultaneous Attack And Defenseis also a facing tool... IE to prevent long arm/ short arm.. or creating a self-inflicted "live" side/ "dead" side scenario.

No, it's not. You can face squarely or obliguely and still simul block and strike.

3. Simultaneous Attack and Defense is also a range tool, and is part of knowing the timeframe is safest to strike. Meaning a safety belt of a bridge has already been established.

All tools (movement, tactics, etc.) have ranges and/or situations where they are most effectively applied. And, I agree that what we are talking about is a attached fighting tactic. But the tactic itself doesn't show you that -- fighting shows you that.

Therefore in application... yes. The bridge, block, or covering of space comes first, before the strike. But this is a very small window, and in terms of strategy and timing the strike and the block are related. Hence the term... simultaneous strike and defense.

As I said, what is being called a simul block and strike, like a pak da or tan da, can have two different timings, a 1-2 timing like you describe above or a single beat timing.

It is not just blindly hit and block at the exact same time.

Getting caught up in terminology in this case, has lead to a misunderstanding of the meanings behind the terms.

Safety belt (bridge or time on your side) first.. then strike.

WCK's method is to control while striking -- so you can control then strike, control and strike at the same time, etc. This is not about getting "caught up in terminology" Our words express our ideas, and some of us here are talking about very different things.

On another note:

We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually.

Then perhaps you should explain that to "sifu" Mark. Apparently, he hasn't learned that (since those were his words).

What we do teach is the importance of knowing the differences between MMA timeframes, strategies, and body mechanics, and those that function within WC.

As a disregard for these understandings, and the mixing up of the two can lead to WC tools and strategies being used at the wrong time and failing.

This is not to say that they can't be used together. Just one has to know how to mix them with out compromising the effectiveness of either.

Why make things so complicated?

If you understand that WCK is a certain, specific approach to fighting (not MMAs approach) and provides a skill set that pertains mainly to attached fighting (to control while striking), then all of the above falls into place on its own.

This is why we refer to MMA as being "outside the box" and WC as being "inside the box", but yet both being two sides of the same coin. There's much more to it obviously, but that's a whole other thread.

Good training to all.

Funny, but when I fight on the ground, I don't confuse what I am doing with my WCK, or inappropriately use WCK. Nor do I need to refer to stand-up as being "outside the box" of BJJ.

[t_niehoff]

That's right....

So ya'll fellas, make sure you get attached before you start fighting...

Some ways to get attached..

Ask out your opponent for a candle light dinner...

Tell them you care and ask them more about their family...

Give them that look, and tell them their special.....

Ask them to go steady...

BJJ is for the ground, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

WCK is for attached stand-up (clinch) fighting, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

In each case, the "getting there" is not the major aspect of the training, the fighting once you "get there" is.

[duende]

I don't understand what the difference is between an MMA timeframe vs a WC timeframe. I don't even know what an MMA timeframe is. Could you please explain? THX.

MMA timeframes contains ranges based kicking, striking, cinching, ground grappling, etc.. The way they employ the techniques involved in these ranges rely on different COG focus and angles of facing.

WC timeframes, rely on primary body mechanics, rootings, body karma, body methods, structure, whatever you want to call it being maintained foremost. This is echo'd throughout ranges of engagement.

[duende]

That is a dodge.

Look, "simultaneous" is an english word, and has a precise meaning -- to occur at the same time. If you had some "eastern idea" that means something else, then you wouldn't use that english word to express that idea.

And, btw, lien siu die da, literally "ink defense to bring in offense,"does not mean simultaneously blocking and striking.



Hmmm, let's see if I can express that in english . . . you simultaneously drop a handful of rocks, yet they hit the ground at different times (apparently defying the laws of gravity!).

Are you studying a Chinese MA or a personal English interpretation? While, sure I could have detailed my analogy better, I thought the point was obvious. If you toss up different sizes and weights of rocks up in the air, they will all land at different times.

If we are discussing the concepts of an Eastern art, then we should consider their POV on aspects within the concepts being discussed. One only has to listen to 10 seconds of Cantonese Opera to hear that what constitutes "1 beat" is not the same as in western traditions.

No, it's not. You can face squarely or obliguely and still simul block and strike.

Sure, but is your block collapesed? Does it compromise your footwork? Is your strike over-extended? These are some a few points of reference to consider.

All tools (movement, tactics, etc.) have ranges and/or situations where they are most effectively applied. And, I agree that what we are talking about is a attached fighting tactic. But the tactic itself doesn't show you that -- fighting shows you that.

In good WC form equals function. Or at least it should!! That's why many people here talk so much about body mechanics etc. It's the not the techniques that matter, as it is the structure, facing, and implementation of energy.

The focus here, is that one develops these body mechanics, so that they come into play first. Strategy, techniques, etc... are built upon these initial foundations. jumping into a ring, without these mechanics developed, tested, and ready to go... is a set-back imo.

As I said, what is being called a simul block and strike, like a pak da or tan da, can have two different timings, a 1-2 timing like you describe above or a single beat timing.

Maybe we are in agreement here. Just different points of reference in regards to time. I would not refer to a Tan Da technique as being 2-beats. I would say the Tan covers the space before the strike, but we are talking milliseconds here.

WCK's method is to control while striking -- so you can control then strike, control and strike at the same time, etc. This is not about getting "caught up in terminology" Our words express our ideas, and some of us here are talking about very different things.

Agreed, but sometimes words aren't enough in transferring understandings. Neither are videos btw.

Then perhaps you should explain that to "sifu" Mark. Apparently, he hasn't learned that (since those were his words).

I'm not about to speak for anyone. Especially out of context. I can only speak for myself. Even when I use the word "we"

Why make things so complicated?

If you understand that WCK is a certain, specific approach to fighting (not MMAs approach) and provides a skill set that pertains mainly to attached fighting (to control while striking), then all of the above falls into place on its own.

You would think.. but in actually you often see a tan being expressed with no function, only form. Add this to MMA techniques, and..... Whammo... lot's of technique! But solid WC body mechanics?? Maybe not.

Funny, but when I fight on the ground, I don't confuse what I am doing with my WCK, or inappropriately use WCK. Nor do I need to refer to stand-up as being "outside the box" of BJJ.

Sure, but perhaps you're employing the WC principles though your body mechanics without even thinking about it. Ever thought of that?

The WC principles here are in understanding how you go to the ground. Meaning that important time of "falling". That's where the classic mistake occurs imo. In that switch between stand-up emphasis, and ground work emphasis.

Ground fighting has even greater live side/dead side focus.... it has centerline awareness. It even has TYD body mechanics. So I don't think everything you learned in WC goes out the window once you hit the floor.

LAters

[t_niehoff]

Are you studying a Chinese MA or a personal English interpretation? While, sure I could have detailed my analogy better, I thought the point was obvious. If you toss up different sizes and weights of rocks up in the air, they will all land at different times.

If you have some "eastern concept" that doesn't mean "at the same time", then why would you use the word "simultaneous" to refer to that concept?

And, again, you may want to review your understanding of physics.

If we are discussing the concepts of an Eastern art, then we should consider their POV on aspects within the concepts being discussed. One only has to listen to 10 seconds of Cantonese Opera to hear that what constitutes "1 beat" is not the same as in western traditions.

Why don't you provide a citation to support your claim that a "1 beat" in chinese music is different than a "1 beat" in western music?

Sure, but is your block collapesed? Does it compromise your footwork? Is your strike over-extended? These are some a few points of reference to consider.

That can happen regardless of the facing.

In good WC form equals function. Or at least it should!! That's why many people here talk so much about body mechanics etc. It's the not the techniques that matter, as it is the structure, facing, and implementation of energy.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of technique. The "technique" is the body mechanics, the structure, the facing. Your rear cross in boxing, for example, involves body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. Techniques matter since they are your tools. Body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. don't matter or exist outside of your tools.

"Implementation of energy" is nonsense verbage.

The focus here, is that one develops these body mechanics, so that they come into play first. Strategy, techniques, etc... are built upon these initial foundations. jumping into a ring, without these mechanics developed, tested, and ready to go... is a set-back imo.

It doesn't work that way -- everything is holistic, you can't have one part or develop only one part and then put them together. Going back to the rear cross example, you don't develop the body mechanics first, then add the facing, then add the structure, etc., you develop all of that at the same time and you do that by using the tool/technique itself. In fact, you can't develop the body mechanics, the facing, the structure for the cross without doing the technique! It's the same with WCK.

Maybe we are in agreement here. Just different points of reference in regards to time. I would not refer to a Tan Da technique as being 2-beats. I would say the Tan covers the space before the strike, but we are talking milliseconds here.

Tan doesn't "cover the space", it is a spreading action (tan means "to spread"). The spreading action can do a number of things to an opponent depending on the situation (how you are connected to him).

Agreed, but sometimes words aren't enough in transferring understandings. Neither are videos btw.

I don't disagree.

I'm not about to speak for anyone. Especially out of context. I can only speak for myself. Even when I use the word "we"

I see. So when you wrote "We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually." you were speaking only for yourself?

You would think.. but in actually you often see a tan being expressed with no function, only form. Add this to MMA techniques, and..... Whammo... lot's of technique! But solid WC body mechanics?? Maybe not.

Again, you over-complicate things. There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.

Sure, but perhaps you're employing the WC principles though your body mechanics without even thinking about it. Ever thought of that?

No, because you can't. You can't use WCK principles without using the WCK tools. The tools are the principles in action.

The WC principles here are in understanding how you go to the ground. Meaning that important time of "falling". That's where the classic mistake occurs imo. In that switch between stand-up emphasis, and ground work emphasis.

Ground fighting has even greater live side/dead side focus.... it has centerline awareness. It even has TYD body mechanics. So I don't think everything you learned in WC goes out the window once you hit the floor.

LAters

We can find similarieties in anything. And since groundfighting (attached fighting on the ground) and standing attached(clinch) fighting both involve contact, they will share some similarities. But there are numerous and very significant differences between the two that make them quite distinct. So much so, that being skilled in WCK doesn't give a person any advantage in developing their ground game (it isn't like WCK people earn their belts faster). That should tell you something.

[anerlich]

Not at all. It seems the reasoning ability of people on this forum is not very good -- I wonder if tist comes from atrophy through their WCK training (brainwashing).

I've said this many times, to learn how to effectively train, we should look to good, proven fighters and fight trainers. Listen to THEM. I'm not saying listen to me becasue I am so good or I am a master or I am a sifu or whatever -- I am saying look to the really good, proven fighters and fight trainers.

Your reasoning ability is flawed. While your arguments might hold some merit (since you are parrotting people more skilled and intelligent than you), you fail to see that it is your own advocacy of them, as someone who is by your own admission at best marginally successful in making them work, that keeps putting sugar in your gas tank. No wonder you're getting nowhere.

I wonder if tist comes from atrophy through their WCK training (brainwashing).

Possibly. You, as a possible example of a victim of such an affliction, seem to have developed a form of OCD, obsessively channelling Matt Thornton.

[anerlich]

I think there is a part of training for self defense that is on even footing with training to fight but doesn't get as much press. I will also say it is not something taught a lot at your traditional MA schools either.

Agreed. Self defense is more about the stuff you mentioned than martial skill.

"Strong on Defense" covers that stuff very well for people that want to avoid escape and survive with fighting as a last resort.

But this thread isn't about that, it's about the heinous misnaming of youtube clips and the neverending borefest on training methods. So stop trying to distract.

[duende]

And, again, you may want to review your understanding of physics.

Don't believe me? Go outside and try it.

Why don't you provide a citation to support your claim that a "1 beat" in chinese music is different than a "1 beat" in western music?

I already provided proof. Turn your radio on, maybe there's Chinese station in your area.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of technique. The "technique" is the body mechanics, the structure, the facing. Your rear cross in boxing, for example, involves body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. Techniques matter since they are your tools. Body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. don't matter or exist outside of your tools.

Then by your reasoning, all techniques are the same... just shapes. The foundational support behind the techniques don't matter.

Not much power behind your punch? This may be why.

"Implementation of energy" is nonsense verbage.

Ever thought about the importance of controlling your own COG while striking? Might want to give it some consideration.

It doesn't work that way -- everything is holistic, you can't have one part or develop only one part and then put them together. Going back to the rear cross example, you don't develop the body mechanics first, then add the facing, then add the structure, etc., you develop all of that at the same time and you do that by using the tool/technique itself. In fact, you can't develop the body mechanics, the facing, the structure for the cross without doing the technique! It's the same with WCK.

Everything is holistic. Proper techniques are extensions of proper foundational body mechanics. Unless you're prone to believing in safe top heavy building.

Tan doesn't "cover the space", it is a spreading action (tan means "to spread"). The spreading action can do a number of things to an opponent depending on the situation (how you are connected to him).

And this is why it doesn't work for you. All the techniques in WC should cover space. Punch or block, they should cover earth, human, or heaven gates.

I see. So when you wrote "We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually." you were speaking only for yourself?

Obviously you rely heavily on assumptions to prove your arguments. I just didn't want to use someone's words out of context.

Again, you over-complicate things. There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.

So you put form over function. That is clear.

No, because you can't. You can't use WCK principles without using the WCK tools. The tools are the principles in action.

The tools are simply shapes. The body mechanics and structure beneath these tools is where the jewels of WC lay.

We can find similarieties in anything. And since groundfighting (attached fighting on the ground) and standing attached(clinch) fighting both involve contact, they will share some similarities. But there are numerous and very significant differences between the two that make them quite distinct. So much so, that being skilled in WCK doesn't give a person any advantage in developing their ground game (it isn't like WCK people earn their belts faster). That should tell you something.

I'm not talking about earning belts. You are. I was merely expressing some of the similarities that transfer from one art to another. Similarities based on proof of concept.

[Wayfaring]

BJJ is for the ground, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

WCK is for attached stand-up (clinch) fighting, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

In each case, the "getting there" is not the major aspect of the training, the fighting once you "get there" is.

Oh, but I disagree. "Getting there" in either case can be among the most important things that you train.

[Wayfaring]

Ground fighting has even greater live side/dead side focus.... it has centerline awareness. It even has TYD body mechanics. So I don't think everything you learned in WC goes out the window once you hit the floor.

I have found this to be true as well.

[Edmund]

OK that makes sense, I see what you're getting at now. Good description.

Thanks, Andrew

No, timing (beats) applies to both individuals. A pak da (a pak sao and strike) can be performed with a 1-2 timing or a 1 beat timing.

You claimed in your previous post a pak da was not a 1 beat timing!
Now you say it can be.

Talk about squirming one way then another.
You've previously said pak sao would never work against a jab and other brilliant advice as well.

Given your awesome array of experiences, you ALWAYS argue that you tried it all before against real MMA fighters. Therefore whatever anyone else suggests can't be good.

Since someone like say Phil has actually competed in kickboxing and you haven't, maybe you should drop the false humility.

You may consider yourself no good but you never give anyone else any props either. It's just a testament to how disagreeable you are.

When the pak sao and strike, or two strikes, occur at the same time, then it is an example of simultaneous action.

No. At the same beat. With one action assisting the other. Motion or an action is more than an instant. Both arms in motion at the same time is a simultaneous action!

You're talking about simultaneous *impact*.

No one claimed their fist is going to land at the same instant as their pak sao contacts.

[Phil Redmond]

If no air resistance is present, the rate of descent depends only on how far the object has fallen, no matter how heavy the object is. This means that two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height. This statement follows from the law of conservation of energy and has been demonstrated experimentally by dropping a feather and a lead ball in an airless tube.
So if you drop ANY object regardless of weight to the ground for example. They WILL hit the ground at the same time. We did this test in 7th grade science.