Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 382

Thread: WCK is attached fighting

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO USA
    Posts
    5,316
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleWCGuy View Post
    That's interesting because I was just thinking that what your conception of WC is limited to a couple JKD trapping movements. Your comments indicate that what you got from Robert was, JKD trapping, chi sao, a bunch of fantasy fighting advice, and some information on Chinese culture. The fact that you spend all of your time trying to supplement your WC with other arts on one hand and tell us about how to practice TWC properly on the other is really all that needs to be said. If you were not suffering from the psychological phenomenon of commitment and consistency on the most delusional level then you would not practice WC at all.
    Dude, you haven't a clue about WCK.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by YungChun View Post
    Outside use of entry traps is:

    1.. Something Victor (and most of us) already said is unlikely against a good boxer/fighter..

    2.. Not something Victor did in the clip..
    You just have to have the attributes for it and exercise patience. You don't charge a guy who is a full head taller than you unless you intend to accept some damage. If you have stocky build that might be fine but Victor has a pretty slight build. What Victor was doing lays the foundation for much of counter fighting. He never established a trap per-say, but staying slightly out of range and getting down your opponents rhythm and keeping an active man sao is how it is done if you are a smaller fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by YungChun View Post
    3.. The lower % aspects of VT..against good fighters..
    That's why patience is necessary to execute such a strategy. To be a good counter fighter you almost have to commit to the idea that you will stand and look at the other guy before you will initiate the attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by YungChun View Post
    ChiSao is not generally known for training outside fighting...although I agree some attributes can crossover.
    That's why Chi Sao needs a diminished role in WC.
    Last edited by HumbleWCGuy; 04-26-2010 at 09:17 AM. Reason: More on counter fighting

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
    Dude, you haven't a clue about WCK.
    and people wonder why wing chun is in such a state lol...... can you imagine a bunch of thai coaches argueing that each other has no idea what their art is all about....or not being able to agree about its core skills and beliefs

  4. #49
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The state that resembles a middle finger.
    Posts
    3,274
    yeah i skim through the WC section and see that no one really knows what the "system" is supose to be, hell they argue about it even being a "system" itself.
    Originally posted by Bawang
    i had an old taichi lady talk smack behind my back. i mean comon man, come on. if it was 200 years ago,, mebbe i wouldve smacked her and took all her monehs.
    Originally posted by Bawang
    i am manly and strong. do not insult me cracker.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    The problem on this board is that there are probably only 5 or 6 regulars who even hold intstructorships in WC and three or four poster who are "WC knowledgeable." Out of that, some studied "non-contact" WC so their experience is useless.

    The rest are pretty much people who have less than 3 years of WC experience gotten most of their experience as mma garage trainers, visiting local fight clubs, college mma clubs, and Youtube, or know absolutely nothing about WC.
    Last edited by HumbleWCGuy; 04-26-2010 at 09:08 AM.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by t_niehoff View Post
    Yes, but you need to look how that fits into the whole game plan.



    I'll take baby steps.

    Let's say my opponent's arms are between us. I am not going to try and just hit him in the head through his arm (since he can hit me too), so I will hit his arms (daap) -- in this way, I stop his ability to hit me (jeet). But, my hit is to break (chum) his structure via his arms.

    For example, look at Phils' clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOZ2iQbiL4 that's not bad and it's similar to something we do, but he is not hitting the opponent with his body structure through the bong sao. If he hit with the bong sao, he would drive his bong sao, like a punch, into his opponent's arms, trying to drive it into the body of his opponent (and if the opponent dropped his arms, he'd just get hit with an elbow). See form, hit form. Ideally, the strike will break his opponent's body structure. That's dap, jeet, chum all in one action. And it's not WCK kickboxing. It's all WCK movement, implementing the WCK faat (game plan).

    Once I'm in contact, I stay in contact, trying to control my opponent while I strike him.
    Phil stepped in with a kwan--wu/bong making light contact to a lead guard... The initial move would not IMO break any structure..

    Add that to what you seem to have written about pak, attacking the opponent with it to his (lead?) guard-->(is that supposed to mean you did a pak/da?)

    Or is that supposed to mean you did a pak on his lead and then pinned it to him? (first)...attack to core..

    Is this supposed to mean you are targeting limbs to attack for entry? But that's not chasing hands?

    About as clear as mud to me, sorry...

    Oh well I tried..

    I am convinced reading this and other things from you that I have no idea what you are talking about... Much of what you write seems erratic..one day a little of this, the next a little of that... Based on what it seems you are saying I can only say this appears to be a method I am unfamiliar with..and seems in opposition to core VT tactics.

    Still, it's fun trying to find any pattern in your posts..
    Last edited by YungChun; 04-26-2010 at 09:15 AM.
    Jim Hawkins
    M Y V T K F
    "You should have kicked him in the ball_..."—Sifu

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleWCGuy View Post
    The problem on this board is that there are probably only 5 or 6 regulars who even hold intstructorships in WC and three or four poster who are "WC knowledgeable." Out of that, some studied "non-contact" WC so their experience is useless.

    The rest are pretty much people who have less than 3 years of WC experience gotten most of their experience as mma garage trainers, visiting local fight clubs, college mma clubs, and Youtube, or know absolutely nothing about WC.
    The problem I think moreso, is not so much the varying degrees of knowledge in wing chun--but the notion that one person feels that everything they do is right and everything everyone else does (if not done his way) is wrong.

    T isn't the only one guilty of this--though he is the most prominant of the bunch. It doesn't exist only on this board either. It exists throughout the entire wing chun community. If your method is different...then there will be disagreements and varying perspectives. However addressing them in a healthy manner starts with one thing: respect, the other thing is omitting the ethnocentristic manner in which one views their interpretation.
    Last edited by SAAMAG; 04-26-2010 at 09:22 AM.
    "I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.

    It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."

  8. #53
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by YungChun View Post
    Still, it's fun trying to find any pattern in your posts..
    Other than his droning about sparring, you won't find consistency in his posts especially concerning the particulars concerning the precise practice of WC. If you want to find consistency, I recommend you look up Narcissistic personality disorder which will explain his attempts to seem superior, and look up commitment consistency a phenomenon found in cults whereby people commit to things that they do not believe in. Check it out!

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,655
    Quote Originally Posted by YungChun View Post
    Is this supposed to mean you are targeting limbs to attack for entry? But that's not chasing hands?
    Doesn't that depend on where you are in relation to their hands/arms and where their hands/arms are in relation to their body?

    I must admit I was a bit thrown by Terence's comment. I would have thought that attacks would be to the body and that any incidental bridge caused by limbs in the way must be capitalized upon, i.e. used to break the opponents structure and lead to more control, as he describes.

    I suppose if you set up the situation so that these bridges occur more often than not then I guess you will be "making bridges".

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
    Ya think?!

    I would like to add though that it also depends on what happens in the fight. Perhaps you never attach because you knock them out first, or perhaps you never attach because you decide that the best strategy to fight your opponent is by way of the outside, or perhaps you decide that you're better on the inside and stuffing the opponent is granting you more success.

    The strategy and tactics can change throughout a fight.
    "I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.

    It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not revolutionary- just correct IMO...avoiding the noise.

    joy chaudhuri

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Vankuen View Post
    Ya think?!

    I would like to add though that it also depends on what happens in the fight. Perhaps you never attach because you knock them out first, or perhaps you never attach because you decide that the best strategy to fight your opponent is by way of the outside, or perhaps you decide that you're better on the inside and stuffing the opponent is granting you more success.

    The strategy and tactics can change throughout a fight.
    Indeed, WC thread sort of make feel like this:
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  14. #59

    Yung Chun posted this quote from Niehoff...

    ...I don't read Niehoff's posts anymore - but when others quote him, then I might - and this one from Terence Niehoff is absolutely amazing.

    The stuff in Phil Redmond's vid that Terence says is pretty good and similar to what he (terence) now does is EXACTLY the kind of thing in the past that Niehoff would RIP APART as things that would never work. Just amazing!!!

    So when Jim (YungChun) wrote this, he was spot on:

    "I am convinced reading this and other things from you that I have no idea what you are talking about... Much of what you write seems erratic..one day a little of this, the next a little of that..."
    .............................

    Now here's the quote from Niehoff:

    "Let's say my opponent's arms are between us. I am not going to try and just hit him in the head through his arm (since he can hit me too), so I will hit his arms (daap) -- in this way, I stop his ability to hit me (jeet). But, my hit is to break (chum) his structure via his arms.

    For example, look at Phils' clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOZ2iQbiL4 that's not bad and it's similar to something we do, but he is not hitting the opponent with his body structure through the bong sao. If he hit with the bong sao, he would drive his bong sao, like a punch, into his opponent's arms, trying to drive it into the body of his opponent (and if the opponent dropped his arms, he'd just get hit with an elbow). See form, hit form. Ideally, the strike will break his opponent's body structure. That's dap, jeet, chum all in one action. And it's not WCK kickboxing. It's all WCK movement, implementing the WCK faat (game plan).

    Once I'm in contact, I stay in contact, trying to control my opponent while I strike him."
    .................................

    ***SO I FIRST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE DISENGENUOUS NATURE OF TERENCE NIEHOFF - THE GUY IS OBVIOUSLY "WINGING IT" FROM POST-TO-POST, WEEK-BY-WEEK, MONTH-BY-MONTH, YEAR-BY-YEAR...

    and is just a flame thrower who really has no foundation to what he does as a wing chun guy/martial artist - and hence the constant changes and bombastic attitudes.
    .................................

    And now I want to address the specifics in his above post that he says Phil is lacking - and point out the errors in his (Niehoff's) approach to how to "fix" what Phil is allegedly doing wrong.

    Niehoff assumes that he can break the opponent's structure by use of his own superior "body structure" - crashing the guy's punch into his chest through use of the bong sao (again, referring to the scenario covered in Phil's TWC clip)...

    in other words, if the wing chun guy had only HIT THE GUY HARD ENOUGH and had done so WITH THE PROPER BODY STRUCTURE - then the bong sao and ensuing moves would have dominated the guy and beaten him easily.

    THIS IS BULL5HIT.

    Because as usual, it's a half-truth...which means the other half is a lie.

    I can do this kind of thing often myself, and have done so (and so can you, reader) - if you're up against someone smaller or weaker than you. Or perhaps against someone the same size as you - or even a bigger guy who doesn't know how to fight.

    Now referring back to my vids: how often do you think the Niehoff approach (THAT IS, THE NIEHOFF APPROACH OF TODAY - BECAUSE TOMORROW HE MIGHT BE 180 DEGREES AWAY FROM IT)....

    how often could ANYONE do that against a much bigger and stronger opponent who does know how to fight. To reiterate once again: the guy in the vid with me stands 6'3" and weighs 210...

    to my 5'10"/170.

    Niehoff shoud show us a vid of himself giving away 40 lbs. and 5 inches against a strong guy who knows how to fight - and doing what he says Phil Redmond should have done.

    You know, one of the reasons why I started the wing chun-enigma-streetfighting thread was this very thing. Organized tournaments - as good as they are - can sometimes give the untrained eye (or the very confused and bombastic brain) a false sense of reality.

    When you're in a ring, cage, whatever...against someone your size - and you happen to be stronger and better conditioned - you can get away with some things that would get you creamed against a bigger, stronger, more skillful man.

    Sure, wing chun is about being aggressive once you get close, and yes that includes using your body structure to keep the pressure on...but SMART wing chun also knows when NOT to push the issue and use other approaches to defeating the opponent.
    Last edited by Ultimatewingchun; 04-26-2010 at 10:23 AM.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    Victor,
    You should read up. I mentioned many of the same things. I thought that you were clearly using your attributes to your advantage. Also, I would be interested in hearing any of your insights it to "small guy" Wing Chun. I started WC when I was 14 so I have had a chance to be the small guy and the big guy. However, I haven't been the small guy for some time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •