Where is the WCK?

[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.

[duende]

Yeah... I realized I didn't describe my analogy thoroughly enough. If you toss up in the air different weight stones they will land at different times. This is because the lighter rocks will travel higher into the air than the heavier rocks.

Anyways. My pos wasn't about physics or gravity really. It was about rocks landing as a scattered mass... And that event representing a moment in time. Not a simultaneously exact instance. But a grouped moment nonetheless.

[Phil Redmond]

Yeah... I realized I didn't describe my analogy thoroughly enough. If you toss up in the air different weight stones they will land at different times. This is because the lighter rocks will travel higher into the air than the heavier rocks.

Anyways. My pos wasn't about physics or gravity really. It was about rocks landing as a scattered mass... And that event representing a moment in time. Not a simultaneously exact instance. But a grouped moment nonetheless.

NP, WC brother.

[YungChun]

Many moves in WCK can be used on the outside (no pre-contact) and from inside (with contact)... The inside is normally higher % and the outside moves are generally lower %... This is so simply because without contact you have more of a timing problem, using only the eyes to judge with..

A pak da rarely happens at EXACTLY the same time although it can..(in theory)

There is also more than just one beat timing and two beat timing.. There can be 1 and 1/4, 1 and 1/2, etc... If you pak/da and the da is coming a 10th of a second after the pak then it's close enough to be called "simultaneous" but it isn't.. The obstacle has to be removed before the da can move on to the target..

And for the record, most folks will have a very tough time doing pak/da successfully against a snappy jab done by a good boxer...who is fresh....if you reach for it, he will simply angle and do a double jab and hit you with the second one, or some variation on that theme.

[Edmund]

A pak da rarely happens at EXACTLY the same time although it can..(in theory)

There is also more than just one beat timing and two beat timing.. There can be 1 and 1/4, 1 and 1/2, etc... If you pak/da and the da is coming a 10th of a second after the pak then it's close enough to be called "simultaneous" but it isn't.. The obstacle has to be removed before the da can move on to the target..

You seem to have a similar definition that simultaneous = instantaneous.

Simultaneous doesn't mean in the same instant.
If both hands are performing actions together, they're simultaneous.

For pak da both hands are in motion, therefore it's a simultaneous attack and defence.

e.g. Simultaneous applause isn't everyone clapping their hands exactly in time with each other. It's just people all clapping.

[YungChun]

You seem to have a similar definition that simultaneous = instantaneous.

Simultaneous doesn't mean in the same instant.
If both hands are performing actions together, they're simultaneous.

For pak da both hands are in motion, therefore it's a simultaneous attack and defence.

e.g. Simultaneous applause isn't everyone clapping their hands exactly in time with each other. It's just people all clapping.

If the point of your post was to redefine the meaning of the term I would say you haven't.. At least not according to my friend Merriam..

Main Entry: si·mul·ta·neous
Pronunciation: \ˌsī-məl-ˈtā-nē-əs, -nyəs also ˌsi-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin simul at the same time + English -taneous (as in instantaneous) — more at same
Date: circa 1660

1 : existing or occurring at the same time : exactly coincident
2 : satisfied by the same values of the variables <simultaneous equations>
synonyms see contemporary

— si·mul·ta·ne·i·ty \-tə-ˈnē-ə-tē, -ˈnā-\ noun

— si·mul·ta·neous·ly \-ˈtā-nē-əs-lē, -nyəs-\ adverb

— si·mul·ta·neous·ness noun

[INicba]

Yeah... I realized I didn't describe my analogy thoroughly enough. If you toss up in the air different weight stones they will land at different times. This is because the lighter rocks will travel higher into the air than the heavier rocks.

Anyways. My pos wasn't about physics or gravity really. It was about rocks landing as a scattered mass... And that event representing a moment in time. Not a simultaneously exact instance. But a grouped moment nonetheless.

Acctualy, you were correct the first time. As Phill has said, objects fall to the ground (regardless of their weight and size) at the same time only when there is no air resistance (in a vacuum).

You can try this out by dropping a feather and a bowling ball in our atmospehere. The bigger the diffrences in weight, object size and distance travelled the bigger the diffrence in hitting the ground when dropped simultaneously. But, that is not true in vacuum; there you can drop a feather and a truck and they'll fall at the same time.

You guys are probably confused because of the well known storry of Galileo Galiei dropping two very diffrent weights from the top of the Leaning tower of Pisa. He probably never did that experiment, taking into account the things we know today.
----------------------------------------
My WCK instructor encouraged simultaneous attack and defence, but I would agree that in reality it is low percentage. At least in as the idea most of you are discussing. You can make it a bit higher percentage by dedicating decades of your life training for that goal, but I don't think thats very practical nor necesery. I think the focus should be on developing fighting relevant atributes, not chasing some ideas of what your think you should be doing. Meaning that feats such as a succsesfully landed simultaneous attack and defence come from superior fighting atributes, not from excepting the concept as your own.

I like Niehoffs despriton of WCK being about controling the opponent while hitting him. With control, in this context, being the ability to prevent the oponent from attacking you. Not the ability to immobilize the opponent or to move him arround at will. Of course, when controling you shouldn't be chasing hands. In WCK you should chase the center. But you should chase the center while not being hit. Again the same idea but diffrent wording. In this sense, WCK is about simultaneous attack and defence. But this doesnt mean that everytime you prevent the opponent from landing the blow you MUST hit him. It just means that when you hit him you should be aiming at preventing him of hitting you at the same time with postioning and angling. Not just trading punches.

[Knifefighter]

I like Niehoffs despriton of WCK being about controling the opponent while hitting him. With control, in this context, being the ability to prevent the oponent from attacking you. Not the ability to immobilize the opponent or to move him arround at will.

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight. When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

[INicba]

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight.

You can't realy say that controling while hitting is an ineffective way to fight, per se. Maybe you mean that it's to hard to do to be realisticly applicable? Or that the WCK clinching skillset threw which a WC practitioner is trying to control while hitting is too incomplete to be effective in fighting in general?

When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

It might be we're not talking about the same thing. Can you give me an example of what you mean here?

The control I speak of is achieved by redirecting and moving your body in such a way that you don't get hit. It isn't something you do and then you can't be hit in that position and you are then suddenly free to do damage. It's more a form of dynamic adaptability not a static position. It's something you should strive at.

While the control I speak of is applied to clinching, grapling and in-fighting I will give you a crude example to explain what I mean: -When I did boxing I was thought slipping punches. It isn't something that'll work everytime but again, something to strive at in contrast to just exchanging blows. You can slip a straight cross punch while checking it with your right hand when you are moving in at the same time to counteratack with a left jab of your own. This is a crude example in which you are in control while hitting by my definition.

[YungChun]

controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight.

If you don't know how to do it, it is.. Folks do it instinctively, many arts train it.

When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

If you don't understand WCK mechanics and techniques then sure. Moreover, there is a time for hitting and a time for finishing.. A boxer's jab is not nearly as powerful as some other punches, but the jab is a vital tool.

WCK mechanics are designed to offer power and control.. The structure and mechanics used--facing--using both hands/arms as one, etc, allow for this...

The mechanics of the striking is quite powerful and some strikes can generate more power than others.. The linear nature of the art, the basic striking in the system puts the entire body behind each shot.. I can generate more power than my fists can withstand by doing so... which is why we also have open hands, more than one kind of strike, elbows, kicks, etc..

A good understanding of the mechanics and tools would help....

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

Of course you think so..

The ground also has a habit of allowing folks to brace their heads on the ground, supported by the ground..

Standing, the striker can and will cause a more pronounced whiplash effect on his standing opponent's head, more easily than on the ground..

The standing striker can generate more power from the legs/body than when on the ground.

You prefer the ground..fine... Some prefer to stand...

[Knifefighter]

If you don't know how to do it, it is.. Folks do it instinctively, many arts train it.

They might train it, but they can't apply it.

WCK mechanics are designed to offer power and control.. The structure and mechanics used--facing--using both hands/arms as one, etc, allow for this...

The mechanics of the striking is quite powerful and some strikes can generate more power than others.. The linear nature of the art, the basic striking in the system puts the entire body behind each shot.. I can generate more power than my fists can withstand by doing so... which is why we also have open hands, more than one kind of strike, elbows, kicks, etc..

A good understanding of the mechanics and tools would help....

It might be designed to do that, but the reality plays out differently.

Of course, as always, you can prove me wrong by pointing me to some clips of WC people doing what you say they can do in this realm.

[t_niehoff]

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight. When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

I guess you're not a fan of dirty (clinch) boxing.

I do agree that you can generally strike with more power when not controlling (when standing). However, there is a trade-off: by not controlling, you are not as safe. And, as I see it, the WCK method (fighting strategy) puts safety first (prevent his offense) -- something I don't see, btw, in most WCK "application demos" (which typically assumes your opponent will just let you hit him and not do anything in return).

Whether you seek out the clinch or find yourself there, you need a strategy and skill set for dealing with it. Control, and the fight for it, is a HUGE part of the clinch. In the clinch range, if you don't have control, your opponenent will. IME in the clinch, you can really only do three things: fight out of it (back to free-movement), control and strike, or control and take your opponent down. WCK provides a base method for doing all this. It certainly isn't exhaustive (neither is MT or greco or judo), but does provide a framework that can be useful in itself or used as a base to build from (which is what YKS did by incorporating some of Fung Sui Ching's weng chun into his method).

And I agree with your assessment about the ground, and I think GNP is a natural extension of a clinch-and-pound strategy.

[Knifefighter]

I guess you're not a fan of dirty (clinch) boxing.

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?