Where is the WCK?

[Frost]

seen randy couture do it many a times. Also Matt Hamil and a few others do it well.

but how much damage did they do, or was it a more controlling position to wear them down and set up the take down.

I think Knifes point is that it is difficult to hit hard whilst clinching unless you have room to really use the hips (like in the plum).

Also i tend to only see it working best when you have the guy pineed up against a cage, not in the middle of the ring, so training it without the cage/wall to pin the guy (as in wing chun) might be pointless

[m1k3]

I think that you will generally see Pulver control and strike with power under two conditions... the plum tie with knees and a behind the neck tie-up control with one hand while striking with the other. Both of these would be valid scenarios for controlling and striking with power. Notice how, with each of these, the control is at the neck, rather than the arms.

I agree 100%. WC arm trapping as shown by a lot of people is not practical, but I have seen WC examples of neck control and punching which I would consider effective.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Happens all the time in hockey fights.

[Knifefighter]

Happens all the time in hockey fights.

Exactly... being able to grab clothing is a scenario where controlling and punching can be used effectively.

[m1k3]

So, they should start wearing bulking loose sweaters as part of the WC uniform? Or maybe hoodies, I'd be willing to bet their are some interesting things you can do with a hoodie in a fight.

[Frost]

So, they should start wearing bulking loose sweaters as part of the WC uniform? Or maybe hoodies, I'd be willing to bet their are some interesting things you can do with a hoodie in a fight.

with a hoodie..or to a hoodie? (UK guys only to reply to this lol)

[CFT]

Also i tend to only see it working best when you have the guy pineed up against a cage, not in the middle of the ring, so training it without the cage/wall to pin the guy (as in wing chun) might be pointless

Taking away "degrees of freedom" ... which reinforces knifefighter's point that control is best achieved on the ground.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Exactly... being able to grab clothing is a scenario where controlling and punching can be used effectively.

Seems to work for them, though it loses a bit in the translation when the skates are removed.
I have gone up against too many provincial (state) hockey players while bouncing that tried that crap and paid the price for it.
Context I guess, as with all things.

[Frost]

Taking away "degrees of freedom" ... which reinforces knifefighter's point that control is best achieved on the ground.

Well put and yes it does doesn't it

[INicba]

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

I think that is the main problem with WCK. It may very well be it's just me who's incompetent and that a guy after about two decades of very hardcore training may apply WCK to a degree, against a fully resistent competant opponent.

Saying that, I still think WCK is worth exploring and it has a lot to offer if trained under a good instructor and with a critical mindset. Training with uncooperative people from diffrent backgrounds is allways a good refrence to see if something is helping you out in your MA journey or is acctualy hindering your effectivness.

[SAAMAG]

It's not a close call. In boxing they call what Machida did batting away punches-- you bat away his punch THEN fire one back (a 1-2 timing). Look at Machida's rotation (his shoulders), that tells you the timing.

I know what you're saying, I'm looking at his entire body though. Like I was saying before, humans are fallible and so the timing will not be perfect in all cases.

IMO that is just as much a pak-da as it is a [1-2] parry and punch because the moves are overlapping. So depending on one's affinity for boxing or wing chun this can be considered simultaneous action because they're happening at the same time, or it can be considered a parry and punch because of the shoulders.

I've experienced in wing chun where pak-da's happen exactly this way. I've experienced in boxing during jab drills where the batting and the punch are done exactly this way.

You're right that in boxing and similar arts it goes down with a 1-2 beat and with wing chun is goes down in 1 beat--but in this example [to me] its in between. Not something really worth 3 pages of arguing about ya know?

Bottom line is that it works...regardless of what you want to call it or whether it was done textbook flawlessly.

[Edmund]

You're right that in boxing and similar arts it goes down with a 1-2 beat and with wing chun is goes down in 1 beat--but in this example [to me] its in between. Not something really worth 3 pages of arguing about ya know?

Bottom line is that it works...regardless of what you want to call it or whether it was done textbook flawlessly.

Exactly.

Rather that trying to actually acknowledge the technique which is shown to work and straight out of WC 101 basics, Terence grabs the dictionary and a stopwatch...

Someone call a waahmbulance, we have a victim with a severe case of mouth froth.

[anerlich]

You're right that in boxing and similar arts it goes down with a 1-2 beat and with wing chun is goes down in 1 beat--but in this example [to me] its in between. Not something really worth 3 pages of arguing about ya know?

Well said. And whatever the timing was, Lyoto nailed it in that clip.

[duende]

I don't need to try it -- I did those experiments my first year in collge as a physics major. All objects, neglecting for the moment air resistance, fall at the same rate.

With objects like rocks, air resistance won't be significant.

Air resistance? Really... is that how your brain works. Ha ha... Ok.

I was referring to energy. And the effect equal amounts of energy has on objects of greater and lesser mass.

In this case the energy is the tossing up in the air. And the objects of greater and lesser masses are the different sized rocks.

No, you didn't supply proof -- you supplied an assertion. And then you refused to provide any evidence of your assertion.

No... I provided an educated insight into Eastern Music. One that is based both on academic and real world experiences. If you want references, I can certainly provide them for you, but you really should take my word for it.

I am not talking about "shapes" -- I am talking about actions, movement. Techniques are actions/movements to achieve a desired objective. The foundational support you talk about is an aspect of the technique, not a thing in itself (and can't be separated from the technique).

There are inherent fundamental body mechanics that transcend across techniques. Body mechanics that link a punch to a sprawl and so forth, but obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Why the barb about me lacking power? Do boxers lack power too? You don't ehar them talking about all your segmented, theoretical aspects.

It was just a suggestion for your consideration.

Having good body mechanics transcend across styles. Nothing about what I'm saying is segmented or theoretical.

Some boxers punch like they're swinging a bat at you. Some punch like they're taking the bat and ramming it into your face like a 2x4.

Different body mechanics for generating power, different physic being applied, and different COG control potential. Hmmmmm... go figure.

You can only learn to do that by and trhough punching. It's like trying to learn to control you COG in bike riding by not riding the bike -- you are only fooling yoruself. You learn balance in bike riding by and through riding. Similarly, you learn to "control your COG" (more verbal nonsense, btw) in punching by punching.

I'm less and less inclined to believe that you have any idea about the usefulness of structure and proper body mechanics, and their benefits in generating power..

If everything is holistic, then you can't learn or develop them segmented.

One step up after the other. Same mountain.

WCK works just fine for me, thank you. The WCK movement/techniques are actions, they are doing something to your opponent -- not "covering space". If I pull you, for example, I am not "covering space", if I strike you, I am not "covering space." The gate theory is more nonsense.

Didn't you just admit that your skill was poor?

As far as your saying that YOU don't cover space when YOU strike or pull... That's no surprise.

I guess someone should tell you that Thai Boxers cover space and use a variation of gate theory too.

No assumption. Why is it you can't simply say that you disagree with what "Sifu" Mark said?

Because I didn't know where you were quoting him from, and I don't care to use his or anyone's words out of context.

Plus, I already gave my opinion on the matter pages ago.

I said, 'There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.' How is that putting form over function?

Look, would a boxing coach say "your cross is being expressed with no function only form"? Who talks like that?

YOU DO. Your saying that a technique is meant to express a given form. Use technique A_3.176 to achieve "desired objective" D_4.762.

I'm saying that if there is no solid body mechanics behind your techniques, then all you got is bunch of hand movements (shapes) without real support and leverage. Which in WC translates into alot of patty cake and slap happy nonsense.

You seem to be thinking in terms of WCK being a shape + body mechanics + facing + etc. There are no "shapes". The shapes you see are snapsots frozen in time (and used to help beginners learn the actions). There are only ACTIONS. And the actions are used to achieved desired objectives (which make them techniques) -- or, to put it another way, there aren't shapes but ways of performing specific tasks. Tan sao, for example, is a way of performing a specific task. There is no "universal" WCK body mechanics but rather mechanics appropriate for whatever task you are performing. The mechanics will change with the task.

I'll leave you with this one. I'm not even going to try to help you here. But I will say, that I'm not talking about snapshots in time. I'm talking about ENERGY.

Similarities in concept mean nothing since concepts are only ideas (and not skills). The point is that skill in WCK doesn't help you one lick in developing skill in BJJ -- if that were the case, then we would expect WCK people to progress faster (earn belts in BJJ faster) than others. That is not the case. So the evidence shows that any "similarity in concept" has no impact in our development or transfer of skill.

Maybe for you.. not so for the other posters here who have attested otherwise.

Concepts are, for the most part, nonsense. Our skill doesn't come from concepts, it comes from practicing (performing) that skill.

So you are saying the notion of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting of COG for power generation, covering of space... and so on. All these focuses of concept... you're saying these are all nonsense!

Do you not think it's helpful to know what to practice and how to practice? Or is that all nonsense too?


Anyways... I think I've said all I can say on this thread.

You all take care... I'm out of here.

[t_niehoff]

Air resistance? Really... is that how your brain works. Ha ha... Ok.

Yeah, ha, ha. My brain works like someone trained in physics. And yours?

I was referring to energy. And the effect equal amounts of energy has on objects of greater and lesser mass.

In this case the energy is the tossing up in the air. And the objects of greater and lesser masses are the different sized rocks.

Energy? BTW, nice attempt ata dodge -- you ORIGINALLY said (and this is what I responded to): "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."

Now, you change it to throwing them up in the air.

That's called being intellectually dishonest.

No... I provided an educated insight into Eastern Music. One that is based both on academic and real world experiences. If you want references, I can certainly provide them for you, but you really should take my word for it.

No, you provided an assertion that you can't seem to support.

There are inherent fundamental body mechanics that transcend across techniques. Body mechanics that link a punch to a sprawl and so forth, but obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I don't know what you are talking about since you are talking about nonsense. Body mechanics are what you are doing with your body -- when you do two different things, you are using your body in two different ways. You are not using your body the same in punching as you do in sprawling. You don't even use your body the same when you throw different types of punches.

It was just a suggestion for your consideration.

Having good body mechanics transcend across styles. Nothing about what I'm saying is segmented or theoretical.

Sure, everyone stresses good mechanics but that doesn't mean that all the mechanics are the same. A boxer doesn't move like a wrestler -- as they aredoing different things, they need to use their body differently. This is what you don't seem to appreciate: the mechanics is task-dependent.

Some boxers punch like they're swinging a bat at you. Some punch like they're taking the bat and ramming it into your face like a 2x4.

No, they don't.

Different body mechanics for generating power, different physic being applied, and different COG control potential. Hmmmmm... go figure.

You are making sh1t up -- go figure.

I'm less and less inclined to believe that you have any idea about the usefulness of structure and proper body mechanics, and their benefits in generating power..

I really don't care what you believe. What makes body mechanics "proper" is that they are effective for performing a particular task, and as the task changes, so will how we need to use our body to perform that task.

One step up after the other. Same mountain.

No, sorry, but not all paths lead up the mountain -- or develop skill.

Didn't you just admit that your skill was poor?

No, I never said that -- I said that I'm not all that good. That doesn't mean I'm not heads above many of you and your sifus. But this isn't a qustion of personal skill.

As far as your saying that YOU don't cover space when YOU strike or pull... That's no surprise.

I guess someone should tell you that Thai Boxers cover space and use a variation of gate theory too.

No, they don't. You're making sh1t up again.

YOU DO. Your saying that a technique is meant to express a given form. Use technique A_3.176 to achieve "desired objective" D_4.762.

Gosh, what do YOU use a hammer for? Hmm, to hammer something? The WCK tools, just like the tools of other martrial arts, are physical actions (tools) used to perform a specific task.

I'm saying that if there is no solid body mechanics behind your techniques, then all you got is bunch of hand movements (shapes) without real support and leverage. Which in WC translates into alot of patty cake and slap happy nonsense.

Of course you need to have your body and hands working together or what you are doing won't work, but this is true in all athletics -- it's true in boxing, wrestling, tennis, golf, and WCK. BUT, how we use our body varies with the task. There isn't some "universal" body mechanic for WCK, just like there isn't one for boxing or wrestling.

I'll leave you with this one. I'm not even going to try to help you here. But I will say, that I'm not talking about snapshots in time. I'm talking about ENERGY.

"Energy" is more nonsense. You're not seeing the forrest for the trees. Development of skill BEGINS with the task. Skill is your ability to successfully perform a task with max certainty and min time/effort. All kinds of things go into performing that task, mechanics, alignment, strength, etc.

Maybe for you.. not so for the other posters here who have attested otherwise.

The evidence exists apart from us. Where are all the WCK people who have advanced in BJJ faster than their classmates who didn't previously practice WCK? Once again, you're making sh1t up.

So you are saying the notion of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting of COG for power generation, covering of space... and so on. All these focuses of concept... you're saying these are all nonsense!

Yup. The whole intellectual artiface is nonsense for the most part. You don't need it and it just gets in the way. You don't develop physical skill by intellectual m@sterbation, you develop it by learning the skill and then practicing the skill. Boxers, MT fighters, wrestlers, etc. all seem to do very well without all that nonsense.

Do you not think it's helpful to know what to practice and how to practice? Or is that all nonsense too?

Sure it is. Can you learn and develop the skill of riding a bike without talking about "concepts" of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting your COG, etc.? Perhaps all it takes is for someone to SHOW you the fundamental skills, and then have you practice?

And, while we're on the subject, how can people who can't do it -- who don't have significantly developed fighting skills -- know the "concepts" of that skill? Isn't that just a case of the blind leading the blind?