Wing Chun "defeats" MMA

[goju]

You must really stop talking about things you know nothing about. Like me (you've never met me, and have no idea how long I trained in judo -- but, of course, having no knowledge of the subject doesn't seem to bother you, as you just make sh1t up) and wing chun (which you don't even train).

I dont want to meet you. Frankly what ive seen here is enough to know that you're a delusional, cowardly little worm of man who fabricates lies about himself continually to mask the fact he is exactly what he so fond of criticisizing on here.

[Frost]

Dying sport??
Since when?
The rules they made, they made to make it more competitive for ALL, agree or disagree with them, it has done just that.

sorry but this is not right, when the east europeans were clearing up using new grips etc they banned them in order to make it more even for the the japanese

[sanjuro_ronin]

sorry but this is not right, when the east europeans were clearing up using new grips etc they banned them in order to make it more even for the the japanese

Ah yes, you are right about that.
Personally I would love to see Judo being like the closed door training one gets at the kodokan, where pain is the name of the game and blood is your bedfellow, but you wouldn't keep many students around that way.
Besides, no matter what, the cream always rises to the top.

[Eric_H]

First, how do you KNOW what it takes to be a high level swordsman? You don't. You only have a theory. And that theory is based on zero actual experience. So all your speculations are empty.

To use your own words:

You must really stop talking about things you know nothing about. Like me (you've never met me, and have no idea how long I trained in sword fighting -- but, of course, having no knowledge of the subject doesn't seem to bother you, as you just make sh1t up) and wing chun (which you barely even train).

And people used to believe in dim mak too!

It doesn't work. It never did. Chang Dong Sheng, the greatest of all SJ fighters, never did any of that stuff.

You can possibly reverse any position (Rickson getting suplexed and taking the back from mid-air comes to mind), that's not the point.

Terence, a fall from a standing position, with no added force can and has broken bones on average human beings. Adding aditional force and taking away the ability to fall safely (the design of a throwing technique) increases the risk of significant injury.

No matter how much you argue it, the above statement is true.

No. This is another *assumption* on your part. It's like "if you can break a brick, then you can . . . " No. It's not the same. Have the karateka try it in realistic sparring and they will get their fingers broken. Facing a dynamic situation where someone is fighting you is not the same as hitting something in a static situation where your opponent is not trying to injure you.

You're only focusing on 1/2 the equation again Terence, If I can hit you with a jab, i can hit you with a finger strike. The shape is identical, the trow from the body is identical, the only differences are 1) the hand being open rather than closed and B) the effective target area being smaller.

Do you really think they are that different?


Now whether you THINK the finger jab will be effective if it lands being a seperate argument, do you legitimately think a jab and finger strike are different enough to make their employment SO RADICALLY DIFFERENT that I cannot do one as I would the other?

You say that you believe you can strike with the fingers because you want to believe it, not because you are already doing it.

Again, to use your own words:


You must really stop talking about things you know nothing about. Like me (you've never met me, and have no idea how long I trained in using finger strikes -- but, of course, having no knowledge of the subject doesn't seem to bother you, as you just make sh1t up) and wing chun (which you barely even train).

I KNOW that I can strike with all my power with my fist and not get hurt -- I know this because I do it all the time, I hit things, including actual opponents, all the time. That's not a theory or a hope or what I'd like to believe, it is true and I know it from actual experience (performance).

The whole lethal/non-lethal distinction is meaningless. I can put a RNC on you, choke you out, and keep it on until you are brain dead. Is the RNC a lethal or non-lethal technique?

RNC can be a lethal technique. So can a jab to the throat. BUT since you would never train such a "theoretical" technique, you obviously wouldn't be able to do such a thing.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there are some so-called lethal techniques, OK? How can you train them? You can't go around killing people. So you can only practice them by not really doing them. And so you never really know if they work or not. Moreover, you can never get very good at them since you never really do them.

This goes back to our battlefield vs civilian argument from before: Battlefield YOU CAN and SHOULD kill your enemy. Civilian you SHOULD NOT kill your enemy. There are far too many repercussions.

Finally, why would anyone want to learn such things?

A ton of reasons. Some people still find themselves in life or death combat, some people want to preserve the historical aspects of their art which may include killing techniques.

Your question is essentially: so you know your jab won't stop him, don't you think that you should try something else that you've never really done to try and stop him? Something that is low percentage, high risk, and may not even work if you pull it off? No. That's only going to make things worse.

Here's an idea -- why not instead of using a jab, use a tool that you KNOW from experience has good stopping power?

There are no finger strikes in the Biu Jee form.

The finger strike has enough stopping power: I made my example before witht he elite XC fight.

There are absolutely finger strikes in Biu Gee. They're in the first section. Have you ever even trained Biu Gee? If not, that might be why you're so hard on WC, Biu Gee give an idea of what to do when your WC starts to fall apart.

When I got poked in the eye and had my retina detached, it was while sparring and I didn't lose a beat (although it hurt, but then getting hit often does!). In fact, I didn't even know anything was wrong until later that night when I was walking my dog (it was dark) and kept seeing flashes. Then I did an internet search and took off to the ER. The poke was unintentional.

Again, hope it healed up ok. Eye injuries are nothing to laugh at or shake off, I know of at least one school that had to be shut down due to lawsuit over an eye injury.

Let's say that you have a punch (a straight punch, for example) that is so weak that it can't really hurt your opponent. It's really no threat. In fact, your opponent wants you to throw it since that means you are not throwing more effective attacks. Do you think your straight punch is leaving you open? Do you think your opponent is salivating in the hope you keep throwing it?

There's a difference between having knockout power and it not being damaging at all. I would say that it's impossible to throw a jab properly, land it, and not do any damage at all.

And, btw, your whole question is purely speculation and fantasy (and reflects TMA-thinking at its "best"). We know what things are high percentage from actual performance (when people fight, these things occur most frequently). It's is based on observation, not speculation or imagination. What is the percentage of landing a finger jab to the eyes? How do you know it is 70%? Are you already doing that in fighting? No. It's pure guesswork on your part. What the likelihood it will "take him out"? Again, you have no idea. What if it is only 10%? What are the chances of you injuring yourself? Again, you don't KNOW. So you don't know what your chances are of landing it or what your chances are of it having any significant effect on your opponent or your chances of not getting injured by attempting it.

You raise factors that obviously should be considered. However, the question about jab vs finger strike remains. If I can land a jab to my opponent's eye, can I land a finger strike? Especially in the finger strike is thrown just like a jab? I say that yes you can. There are additional factors like you have raised above, but it is still a potential valid technique.

[Hardwork108]

ok so your wing chun teacher didnt run off to the jungle to escape you

It seems that you have finally realized how stupid your comments were.

and you trained chow gar with an authentic master...

I have.

just not anyone named Yip or Whitrod

Oh, and we all know that there are only two authentic Chow Gar masters on the planet.......lol

because you claim to have trained with authentic chinese masters,

Actually, I never claimed that my Wing Chun teacher was Chinese. If you think I have then please show us where.

your wing chun teacher was not a master

I doubt that anyone attending referred to themselves as masters. So, how would they know....what would be their criteria? My sifus BJJ abilities perhaps?, I doubt it! LOL!

(according to those at the seminar/meeting he turned up at his skill level wasnt that impressive)

Of course, you are referring to LSWNC1's post that made some unsubstantiated claims and accusations and when called to validate his statements, never came back to answer.....and so the "jerk off" universe of the clueless continues to turn and "flourish".......

and you wont name the chow gar master you trained with...so you are full of it

I won't name him because I don' t have to name him. There are many genuine TCMA sifus and masters who do not splash themselves all over internet forums, and if they don't do so, then I am not going to be the one to name to a bunch of clueless MMA knuckleheads such as yourself.

and i find it funny you always throw out insults then cry when people throw them back at you...

I am not "crying". I am happily posting in a KUNG FU FORUM, while using my TCMA background as a point of reference.

What remains a mystery is the exact reason why you and your fellow kung fu-clueless MMA-ists are doing here

[QUOTE=Frost]god how old are you 6? {/quote]
"6" would make me about 5 years older than you, and infinitely more knowledgable, as far as authentic TCMA methodologies are concerned.

take of the chinese robes, stop watching vidoes on youtube and pretending its you and actually go find a teacher

Tell that to your fellow kung fu-clueless MMA-ists who keep posting Youtube clips of MMA Knuckleheads giving each other brain damage, day in day out.....LOL!

[monji112000]

Dying sport??
Since when?
The rules they made, they made to make it more competitive for ALL, agree or disagree with them, it has done just that.

The rules suck. They made the new rules to rules out styles they did not like. Consistently from the beginning, and more recently with the new rules. So many people in Judo are upset with the rules.. I hear some new American organizations may be created to counter act the rules. So no its not done for "competitive" reasons.

Yes Judo is dieing. I just talked to someone who spent 6 months at the Kodakan.. and I heard some interesting stuff about Judo in Japan and nationally.

As a sport its become over regulated, and most Judokas who are active in competition agree.

some background about the some of the new rules:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IG4Au-3A0s

just as a point the CBJJ is starting to do that to rule out styles they don't like.. ie lockdown. ect..

Just to drive my point even more.. fundametal throws that existed from the start of Judo are now illegal.
perfect example kata garuma (fireman's carry). Illegal technique in 90% of the uses.

marote gari ...illegal

ect..

this is common knowledge and everyone is talking about it. Its the same BS they did when they ruled out all the long Newaza... They changed the rules to remove styles they didn't like from the sport. pulling guard and longer newaza was common in the begging. I have seen old video clips of both, they were made illegal for BS reasons. Thats why you have offshoots that specialize in things judo said was illegal. IE SAMBO and BJJ.

Just to drive my point even more..

A good friend and training partner has been hounded by refs for illegal throws, even when they are supposed to be legal (ie secondary throw). Sport Judo is over regulated.. a new sport needs to be created that hybrids the gi grappling styles... JMO

[sanjuro_ronin]

The rules suck. They made the new rules to rules out styles they did not like. Consistently from the beginning, and more recently with the new rules. So many people in Judo are upset with the rules.. I hear some new American organizations may be created to counter act the rules. So no its not done for "competitive" reasons.

Yes Judo is dieing. I just talked to someone who spent 6 months at the Kodakan.. and I heard some interesting stuff about Judo in Japan and nationally.

As a sport its become over regulated, and most Judokas who are active in competition agree.

some background about the some of the new rules:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IG4Au-3A0s

just as a point the CBJJ is starting to do that to rule out styles they don't like.. ie lockdown. ect..

Just to drive my point even more.. fundametal throws that existed from the start of Judo are now illegal.
perfect example kata garuma (fireman's carry). Illegal technique in 90% of the uses.

marote gari ...illegal

ect..

this is common knowledge and everyone is talking about it. Its the same BS they did when they ruled out all the long Newaza... They changed the rules to remove styles they didn't like from the sport. pulling guard and longer newaza was common in the begging. I have seen old video clips of both, they were made illegal for BS reasons. Thats why you have offshoots that specialize in things judo said was illegal. IE SAMBO and BJJ.

Just to drive my point even more..

A good friend and training partner has been hounded by refs for illegal throws, even when they are supposed to be legal (ie secondary throw). Sport Judo is over regulated.. a new sport needs to be created that hybrids the gi grappling styles... JMO

Wow, I am so out of it...things have changed that much in the last 10 years eh?
I retract my statement...
The heads of the International Judo federation all such big sweaty and hairy balls !!!

[Wayfaring]

The rules suck. They made the new rules to rules out styles they did not like. Consistently from the beginning, and more recently with the new rules. So many people in Judo are upset with the rules.. I hear some new American organizations may be created to counter act the rules. So no its not done for "competitive" reasons.

Yes Judo is dieing. I just talked to someone who spent 6 months at the Kodakan.. and I heard some interesting stuff about Judo in Japan and nationally.

Good post monji - mostly accurate from my observations. Which are limited. The rules limit the sport. Right now if I recall correctly they are limiting newaza to 15 seconds then standing them up again unless there is a pin. The effect of this is that most tend to roll to their stomachs and cover up on the ground as opposed to developing ground skills. Except for the more old guard.

[Wayfaring]

... a fall from a standing position, with no added force can and has broken bones on average human beings. Adding aditional force and taking away the ability to fall safely (the design of a throwing technique) increases the risk of significant injury.

Chipping in .02 on a couple points. Good to see you E.
Top level wrestlers and judoka are dangerous. I would never discount the street damage from either of those types of techniques. But without good striking they don't win all their fights.

Still, a throw or takedown with force, and weight following and landing on it as well is a fight ender. Even if not by itself it leads to a GNP situation that is.

I'm not totally in on what you guys are arguing back and forth though.

... If I can hit you with a jab, i can hit you with a finger strike. The shape is identical, the trow from the body is identical, the only differences are 1) the hand being open rather than closed and B) the effective target area being smaller.

Actually, from what I've seen a slightly extended thumb with a jab can get into the eye socket a lot easier than a totally open hand. Even in MMA - remember BJ Penn / GSP? The completely open fingers are a lot less stable and much more likely to break a finger hitting on bone. For that matter you can see this by the bare knuckle effect - it's hard to fight and not damage your hands in bare knuckle. That's the primary reason for gloves and hand wraps in all the sporting events.

This goes back to our battlefield vs civilian argument from before: Battlefield YOU CAN and SHOULD kill your enemy. Civilian you SHOULD NOT kill your enemy. There are far too many repercussions.

A ton of reasons. Some people still find themselves in life or death combat, some people want to preserve the historical aspects of their art which may include killing techniques.

People still train some of the classic weapons too. All that really is not tremendously practical. But people do the rennaisance festival stuff too, with armor and fighting there. That's all personal preference.

In the world we live in, the battlefield vs. civilian argument IMO is a fallacy. The encounters we are likely to face in a self defense scenario in a policed society are far from battlefield. Unless they are handgun / knife, which immediately changes any aspect of anything we are training that is unarmed.

In the modern battlefield, which is all advanced weaponry, any kind of training we do has very little impact. You can see this by the really low skill levels in Combatives training in the armed forces. They are trying to do something about it, but usually it's just the military guys training outside as a hobby. I think for the modern battlefield, hunting live game and playing "Modern Warfare 2" online on the Xbox probably would be better training for that than any form of martial art. That's where the next generation of "battlefield experts" is going to come from. All those 10-12 year olds that sound like Mickey Mouse on MW2 that kill me 14X before I can move 3 feet.

[Dragonzbane76]

you guys really need to learn how to summarize. seriously..

[t_niehoff]

To use your own words:

You must really stop talking about things you know nothing about. Like me (you've never met me, and have no idea how long I trained in sword fighting -- but, of course, having no knowledge of the subject doesn't seem to bother you, as you just make sh1t up) and wing chun (which you barely even train).

I said that you weren't a "high level swordsman" and so couldn't speak to what "high level swordsman" need to know. Are you a "high level swordsman"?

So I guess I did know what I was talking about.

Terence, a fall from a standing position, with no added force can and has broken bones on average human beings. Adding aditional force and taking away the ability to fall safely (the design of a throwing technique) increases the risk of significant injury.

No matter how much you argue it, the above statement is true.

Sure, a fall CAN possibly result in a broken bone. But that doesn't mean it is likely. People fall all the time without breaking bones. In fact, most often when people fall (unless the are aged or out of shape), they don't break bones. You are proceeding from something that is a possibility (a very small chance) and using it like it is a probability (as in, you will likely get a broken bone). My brother broke his ankle mis-stepping off a curb. Does this mean, then, that stepping is likely to result in broken bones? That is fallacious reasoning.

Throwing doesn't take away the ability to fall safely -- that isn't what throws are "designed" to do. Throws are "designed" to use your body in such a way as to permit you to throw. Some throws can set up certain positions (like the mount) or transitions (like to an arm bar).

You're only focusing on 1/2 the equation again Terence, If I can hit you with a jab, i can hit you with a finger strike. The shape is identical, the trow from the body is identical, the only differences are 1) the hand being open rather than closed and B) the effective target area being smaller.

Again, this is your theory (you believe, not from performance but from imagination, that if you can hit me with a jab then you can hit me with a finger strike). And, if I stand there and let you hit me, then perhaps your theory is true. But people don't stand still and let you hit them. It's not the movement that is difficult but actually striking someone that is difficult. People move when you jab, and they block jabs. For example, one of my training partners broke someone's finger who tried a finger jab: he used a "catch" for what he though was a jab and his opponent's fingers ran into it. You do understand, don't you, that even hitting someone with a jab isn't easy. Throwing the punch may be easy, but landing it isn't. Then hitting to a very small point, like the eye, is much, much more difficult.

To make a finger strike work, you not only have to land your strike (difficult), but land it to a very small, moving target (much more difficult), that we have a built in reflex to guard with (so even if you get through to the target, most people will have their eyes closed), with a very significant risk of injury should you miss or have it blocked.

Do you really think they are that different?

Yes, because I think that any "point hitting" is nonsense -- when you are under high stress (like when fighting) fine motor skill goes out the window. As I said, this is easy to see if you just spar really hard.

Then on top of that, you are trying to "point hit" with a very fragile weapon.

Now whether you THINK the finger jab will be effective if it lands being a seperate argument, do you legitimately think a jab and finger strike are different enough to make their employment SO RADICALLY DIFFERENT that I cannot do one as I would the other?

As I explained above, the finger jab is silly.

Again, to use your own words:


You must really stop talking about things you know nothing about. Like me (you've never met me, and have no idea how long I trained in using finger strikes -- but, of course, having no knowledge of the subject doesn't seem to bother you, as you just make sh1t up) and wing chun (which you barely even train).

Dude, we've tried sparring with finger jabs (wearing goggles). I KNOW they are silly. Go do the work. Why don't you get some guys, goggle up, and spar at 100% with your opponent really trying to knock you the f#ck out and see how well your finger strikes work. Like I said, after you get a broken finger, you'll know.

RNC can be a lethal technique. So can a jab to the throat. BUT since you would never train such a "theoretical" technique, you obviously wouldn't be able to do such a thing.

No, a jab to the throat isn't lethal. More fantasy. I've been hit (again accidentally) numerous times in the throat, with full-power shots. Most people who really spar have too.

This goes back to our battlefield vs civilian argument from before: Battlefield YOU CAN and SHOULD kill your enemy. Civilian you SHOULD NOT kill your enemy. There are far too many repercussions.

You do understand, don't you, that on a battlefield, you will have weapons. Even if the past, people didn't go to war and have epic empty hand battles! Killing someone bare-handed is mostly fantasy. Soldiers have never really spent significant time developing empty-hand skills -- because if they find themselves empty-handed, they will most likely be killed by someone with a weapon.

Your whole "battlefield" notion is mostly fantasy.

A ton of reasons. Some people still find themselves in life or death combat, some people want to preserve the historical aspects of their art which may include killing techniques.

These "historical aspects" are fantasy.

Look, no matter what kind of fighting situation you find yourself in, whether in a gym or a ring or a cage or a bar or a life-and-death struggle, what is going to matter is your conditioning and your skill.

The finger strike has enough stopping power: I made my example before witht he elite XC fight.

Again, you are mistakenly using a possiblilty (it's possible to stop someone) as a probability ( it is most likely you will stop someone). That was an ACCIDENT (where everything aligned just right by mistake). People get hit in the eyes all the time (my retina got detached) and it doesn't stop them. So you are relying on a technique that has a small possibility of working and carries a significant risk of injury to yourself.

There are absolutely finger strikes in Biu Gee. They're in the first section. Have you ever even trained Biu Gee? If not, that might be why you're so hard on WC, Biu Gee give an idea of what to do when your WC starts to fall apart.

Those aren't finger strikes. I probably trained the BJ form before you ever began training WCK. The idea that the BJ form contains finger strikes is one of those put forth by theoretical nonfighters (who don't know any better). If your WCK starts to fall apart, resorting to things that won't work isn't a sound idea. FYI, the contact point with the biu jee sao is the forearm, not the fingers.

Again, hope it healed up ok. Eye injuries are nothing to laugh at or shake off, I know of at least one school that had to be shut down due to lawsuit over an eye injury.

I had laser surgery to "staple" my retina, and I'm fine.

There's a difference between having knockout power and it not being damaging at all. I would say that it's impossible to throw a jab properly, land it, and not do any damage at all.

Happens all the time.

Our differences underscore the TMA-mindset and the performance-based mindset. When you are performance-based, you look to performance (fighting) itself, and your experience performing, from which to draw conclusions and base your views rather than what you imagine or believe.

You raise factors that obviously should be considered. However, the question about jab vs finger strike remains. If I can land a jab to my opponent's eye, can I land a finger strike? Especially in the finger strike is thrown just like a jab? I say that yes you can. There are additional factors like you have raised above, but it is still a potential valid technique.

This is what I mean -- you keep wanting to talk about YOUR THEORY, how you believe things should work rather than talking about how you are already doing them. All theory is nonsense. You can't trust it. The only way to answer questions pertaining to performance is via performance.

[Wayfaring]

you guys really need to learn how to summarize. seriously..

All right. In summary, you're a d-bag.

How's that?

[kung fu fighter]

are you really trying to use the ultimate warrior's wwf signature move as an argument here?

ultimate warrior was the man, i love ultimate warrior

[Wayfaring]

ultimate warrior was the man, i love ultimate warrior

[t_niehoff]

Only Paul can save us with some soft porn right now.