Why Is WCK WCK? Will Not Be Deleted

[YungChun]

I think part of the problem here lies in the term "application". Application to me is fighting, it is what I am doing -- not hope to do, not believe I will do, etc. -- but actually doing in fighting. So, if you are not fighting, you are not doing application.

No, I totally get what you mean by the term...

When I started I came from sport karate.. The sport karate model was carried with you at all times--the sparring equipment...

I specifically came to Chun because I wanted to improve my sparring.. When I gleefully landed in the kwoon for my first lesson I was looking for things I could use right from the start... I found that compared to what I was exposed to before that there was just tons of "stuff" that looked like it might be useful..

So in my case I was working on application in parallel with the standard curriculum... An imperfect approach perhaps but that's what I came for and my sparring partners from college (I was in school then) were my guinea pigs...

You perform the lop da drill, right? Do you think that you are learning application, how the lop dad will be used in fighting? No. You are learning how to perform a lop da, the movement, the connection, the coordination, the variations of the action, etc. But since you aren't doing that under fighting condition, you aren't learning how to use it (when, where, why, how, etc.) in fighting.

Yes and no.. The action is the action... The when and the why (which I could call theory) is what it is... I always tried to make my actions as much like they would be in application given the limits of the drill.. The basic LopSao drill is an inherently dead drill (no resistance, little variability)...Still to me a lop is a lop..later a lop amid resistance is just that.

No, you don't seem to understand. Look, traditional Japanese jiujitsu has the same core elements as judo (Kano took those elements) but what makes judo superior to TJJ is that Kano discarded the traditional way of training and adopted the sport model of training -- same core but trained in two different ways.

No, I do understand.. What I am getting at is how can the training be made more realistic? How can the core training be made more effective?

What's a better way--a more realistic way--to teach the tools and the tactics? The tools/actions have many different uses so if you were going to take the Kano approach with Chun how would you do it and still cover all the basics, actions but more efficiently and with the correct energy? Doesn't Kano's version have kata--drills?

Most WCK people -- and I know because I did it to -- waste their time stuck at the beginner level, forever practicing the curriculum which they already know. Once you can comfortably ride the bike with the training wheels on (play chi sao reasonable well), it is time to take them off and begin learning to really ride the bike.

This is true in many cases.. However, the curriculum does call for sparring, does it not? Also there are many aspects to the training that can take quite a while to develop.. Many students or even 'big shot sifus' never even seem to develop what you term "decent ChiSao" which in itself is a very broad drill that can be played many ways and has tons-o-stuff in it--not to mention the ChiGerk, weapons, etc..

But, I speak specifically to moves that involve two handed simultaneous--yet different actions involving fine motor coordination and use of the horse with it amid resistance.. Most students/teachers don't get to this higher level of performance or ability even in the core drill..

Now, if you are sparring all along the way here, then I see no problem in continuing to refine these more difficult aspects.. Moreover there may come a time when you become too old to fight or you lose interest or the ability to fight/spar hard and then also I see nothing wrong with just doing this training.. You know as well as I do that Wan Kam's skill in these "basics" doesn't come to most quickly, or even ever in many cases..

Moreover, we all have these basics, the core, yet why is it that when folks start sparring/fighting (normally long before all the material is mastered at the drill level) you don't see them or much of that core? Same core, same training, yet where is the "correct expression" and if what is expressed is not correct--as you have often said--then where is it? Where/how did the Chun get lost on its way from the core to the floor? Assuming it did that is...

[t_niehoff]

If the principles and ideas on one side are NONSENSE, then they are NONSENSE across the board. If they are not, then they are not.

And your point is?

You just flipped sides changing from "you have to realize the curriculum is TCMA", to now that there is a curriculum that is TCMA that's not what Hendrik proposes, it's about the movement.

Ridiculous display of convenient logic.

What I am saying is that the various WCK lineages are just various persons' way of teaching WCK -- that they are different textbooks as it were for the same subject matter. A math book isn't math but endeavors to teach you math. While the books can vary, they all retain a similar core curriculum, i.e., the things you need to learn to DO math. In terms of WCK, the core curriculum is the method and the toolbox, which is comprised of movement/actions and tactics. I don't see how this is in conflict with Hendrik's basic premise.

If the movement is what is important, than how MT fighters and boxers apply spit swallow are not any different.

You are confusing several things.

Spit and swallow are tactics, ways of using movement/actions. Moreover, you are confusing the generic with the specific.

Or you could just wake up to reality and realize you can't generalize all of WCK any more than you can generalize all of Hung Gar or Mantis in southern TCMA across different families.

It's not a generalization, it is the realization that there is a common core -- and that there HAS to be (otherwise, we are not doing the same art) -- to our art. Just like there is a common core to boxing or to BJJ or wrestling or etc.

People don't see that because 1) they want to believe themselves and what they do unique or special and 2) because they confuse the curriculum with application. For example, I commonly hear people say things like "we don't use our tan sao the same as . . . " My point is that they aren't using it at all! They are not talking application: this is what I am doing successfully in sparring with the boxers, for instance -- they are talking THEORY, this is how my teacher says to use a tan sao. The latter is bunk. Either you are DOING it or it is bullsh1t.

It is totally hilarious how you can make another pass through your WCK and now be a main proponent for TCMA traditional training, yet only within your little "clique". Anything outside of that you call marketing or other stuff, yet you've never taken the time to investigate what power engines and structures are developed.

I call all THEORY marketing because that is what it is. It is used to sell what is portrayed as "the inner workings" of WCK when the person teaching it isn't making their WCK work! Sort of like, this is how you pass the guard by someone who never rolls. What would you call that but bullsh1t? There are only people who are busy doing it, rolling and passing the guard, and those who say they have the theory.

The core curriculum of WCK is nothing special, it is just those elements/aspects that are common to the various legit branches of WCK. WCK is WCK.

[t_niehoff]

What's a better way--a more realistic way--to teach the tools and the tactics? The tools/actions have many different uses so if you were going to take the Kano approach with Chun how would you do it and still cover all the basics, actions but more efficiently and with the correct energy? Doesn't Kano's version have kata--drills?

The best way of learning and developing fighting (or any athletic) skill is via the sport model/approach. Kano took TJJ and using the sport approach vastly improved upon the results of the traditional training. Yes, he retained kata as something you do at the end of your training (and many people never really bother). Sort of reminds me of something Fook Yeung said about learning in the old days, "First application, then dummy, then form."

This is true in many cases.. However, the curriculum does call for sparring, does it not?

Traditionally, no. Unless you call going out and fighting "sparring."

What I am talking about is making sparring the core or center of your training, like boxers or MT or BJJ or etc. do. It is the thing around which everything else they do revolves.

Also there are many aspects to the training that can take quite a while to develop.. Many students or even 'big shot sifus' never even seem to develop what you term "decent ChiSao" which in itself is a very broad drill that can be played many ways and has tons-o-stuff in it--not to mention the ChiGerk, weapons, etc..

All those things aren't really necessary if you adopt a realistic, functional, sport-model approach.

But, I speak specifically to moves that involve two handed simultaneous--yet different actions involving fine motor coordination and use of the horse with it amid resistance.. Most students/teachers don't get to this higher level of performance or ability even in the core drill..

If it is fine-motor skill it will go out the window when you fight.

Now, if you are sparring all along the way here, then I see no problem in continuing to refine these more difficult aspects.. Moreover there may come a time when you become too old to fight or you lose interest or the ability to fight/spar hard and then also I see nothing wrong with just doing this training.. You know as well as I do that Wan Kam's skill in these "basics" doesn't come to most quickly, or even ever in many cases..

The point is that "just doing that training" doesn't develop any skill, it is just to learn the tools. Once you have learned the tools, you don't need it anymore.

Wan Kam isn't displaying any skill -- he is displaying that he is using the drill/exercise chi sao to learn/teach the "proper" things (controlling while striking).

Moreover, we all have these basics, the core, yet why is it that when folks start sparring/fighting (normally long before all the material is mastered at the drill level) you don't see them or much of that core? Same core, same training, yet where is the "correct expression" and if what is expressed is not correct--as you have often said--then where is it? Where/how did the Chun get lost on its way from the core to the floor? Assuming it did that is...

A HUGE problem is that people are listening to folks who have little to no real skill tell them what to do -- so guess what? They too can't do it.

The core curriculum will only teach you the method and give you the tools, it won't put it together for you. What puts it together -- the ONLY thing -- is how much quality sparring you put in.

This is what I mean by sparring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk

Get in contact and go, trying to control your opponent while striking him using your toolbox. How much time have you (the generic you) put in doing that? Then you take the feedback you get from that (your results plus tips from your coach/training partners) and digest it, then do it again. Because that will determine how good you are at doing it.

[LoneTiger108]

This is what I mean by sparring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk

Now I know you're having a laugh!

Seriously think about what you're saying here T. The clip may as well have been from a Sanshou/Sansau competition as the 'token' 3 rolls is just ridiculous and, if I'm honest, completely disrespectful of any WCK interactive knowledge. That's not what I would call Gorsau or Sansau. That's a bungled mess!

Other than that, the points made and conversation here isn't too bad at all imo...

A HUGE problem is that people are listening to folks who have little to no real skill tell them what to do -- so guess what? They too can't do it.

I would never have guessed that.

[t_niehoff]

No, I'm not confusing anything. Your inability to comprehend what I am saying is where the confusion lies.

I understand what you are saying.

No, WE don't. Are you saying the video of hendrik's student standing around petting invisible dogs, is that also in your toolbox? Is that krap in your 'core curriculum'?
It's not in mine.
And some of the tools I've seen in your own 'legit group's' SNT, those tools aren't in my WCK.

Once again, you miss the point. Reread what I wrote (now with emphasis):

The toolbox is the commonality. There is a commonality of movement/actions and tactics. I am not saying that everything in all branches are the same -- certainly not. Because most of the branches have more than just the core curriculum, and that is to be expected. They have the core curriculum plus additional material.

Nice - there's that 'legit lineage' garbage again. So much for being civil. Funny how you finally got so 'legit' after only 100 hours of training with someone. You're a friggin miracle of nature!

I say legit lineage because if we are doing to compare things from the past, we need to make certain that they are indeed from the past.

And here you go with the insults. As we both know, I had already spent 17 years practicing WCK before I went to train with Robert. One of the things Robert showed me, btw, is how I already had much of the core curriculum, and that this same core is found in Gu Lao, in YKS, in Pan Nam, etc.

Haha, you've really go no clue do you? So by that 'logic', I'm guess all the batting and pitching coaches in MLB are all out of jobs then! What could they possibly teach a major league player after they've hit their first ball or thrown their first pitch! If it's all on the player after they are shown the basics, all they need is practice. rriiiiggghhhttt....

Again you miss the point. The major league players already are performing at an extremely high level -- they are DOING it, and already have the skills (can perform the basics at a high level). The coaches are not teaching them (they already have the skills), they are COACHING them, helping them to find the best way of using their skills to get the best performance.

Let me ask you this, why, after 17 YEARS after being shown WCK, did you STILL have to go find a new Sifu to help you get it right and become all too-legit-to-quit?? Because, by your logic, after those 17+ years, it should've all be on you - you don't need anyone to show it to you again, all you need to do is practice... ahhh, maybe there's the problem!

It doesn't matter how much you practice if you don't have the core curriculum, and even after 17 years I was missing some elements of it. For example, I didn't have the faat mun, the method. Robert taught me that (among other things). Looking back, I can see that it was there implicit in the YM WCK curriculum, but I didn't see it -- in part because I was listening to "the masters" and their nonsense only confused things.

That's one of the great things about looking at other lineages, some branches make things more explicit than others, some have a way of teaching something that might click better with you than what you are presently learning, etc.

Wow, that's really wonderful, you should make that one of the chapters. And, what does that have to do with Bai Jong again? Yup, nothing.

Bai jong means to assume structure, specifically it means to assume the appropriate structure for the task at hand. It's not a pre-fighting posture. We are always bai jong, assuming structure. The other side of the coin is that I don't want my opponent to bai jong -- that's why I break his structure.

Here's the real crux of the issue. If that's all centerline is to you, I think I finally understand why you are so confused and all over the yard when talking WCK.
Think it's time for another 100 hours of super-duper oh-so-legit lessons there.

People can take terms like the jung sien and surround it with all kinds of theoretical nonsense. But all it refers to is the "line" or corridor between our two centers. If I want to move toward you, this corridor is the shortest way. And since I want to get inside, I need to move through that corridor (hence I need to control it). As the kuit says, Yun Hang Gung, Wo Hang Yin - He walks the bow, I walk the string. To walk that string, Jung Sien Dui Ying - I face the centerline squarely, and Sao Lou Jung Sien - My hands remain on that Centerline.

[t_niehoff]

Now I know you're having a laugh!

Seriously think about what you're saying here T. The clip may as well have been from a Sanshou/Sansau competition as the 'token' 3 rolls is just ridiculous and, if I'm honest, completely disrespectful of any WCK interactive knowledge. That's not what I would call Gorsau or Sansau. That's a bungled mess!

Other than that, the points made and conversation here isn't too bad at all imo...

THAT is what fighting on the inside is going to "look" like -- a mess. They weren't skilled in WCK, but at least they had the range, the facing, and the intensity correct. If YOU are not doing that, you won't be able to deal with THAT.

To develop skill, you need to do loads of THAT trying to work out how to make your WCK work.

WCK "knowledge" is nonsense. It is mostly theoretical nonsense by people who don't fight. Go FIGHT on the inside, go put in a significant amount of time, then tell me that's not what it is going to be like.

I would never have guessed that.

I've put in between 1500-2000 hours of THAT sort of sparring in the past 10 years working out how to control my opponent while striking him using WCK tools. How much time have you put in doing that?

[LoneTiger108]

THAT is what fighting on the inside is going to "look" like -- a mess. They weren't skilled in WCK, but at least they had the range, the facing, and the intensity correct. If YOU are not doing that, you won't be able to deal with THAT.

To develop skill, you need to do loads of THAT trying to work out how to make your WCK work.

WCK "knowledge" is nonsense. It is mostly theoretical nonsense by people who don't fight. Go FIGHT on the inside, go put in a significant amount of time, then tell me that's not what it is going to be like.

That's your opinion right there T. All your Kuit (which I would consider 'knowledge') must also be nonsense! So why waste all our time throwing odd lines out here and there? It actually helps nobody

I've put in between 1500-2000 hours of THAT sort of sparring in the past 10 years working out how to control my opponent while striking him using WCK tools. How much time have you put in doing that?

Wow! 2000hrs of that stuff. Over ten years? Not much time really then? I put more time into boxing when I was eighteen over a 2 year period!

Have you never heard of the saying 'less is more'? If you want to spend so much time lashing about like someone that doesn't know how to even hold his Wing Chun form, testing out if you can take the pressure of someone firing all out on adrenaline only, then that's up to you dude.

I prefer the more measured approach. A skillful exchange between two WCK practitioners actually looks nothing like a sansau match.

[t_niehoff]

That's your opinion right there T. All your Kuit (which I would consider 'knowledge') must also be nonsense! So why waste all our time throwing odd lines out here and there? It actually helps nobody

The kuit isn't knowledge -- it is direction for your practice.

When you look at a basketball player or a tennis player, do you talk about how so-and-so has great basketball knowledge or great tennis knowledge? No, it is about how WELL they PLAY, how skilled they are. That skill isn't based in knowledge (Shaq is better because he knows more than Kobe).

Wow! 2000hrs of that stuff. Over ten years? Not much time really then? I put more time into boxing when I was eighteen over a 2 year period!

No you didn't.

I put in about 3-4 hours a week of WCK sparring, and have done that for the past 10 years (that's 1500-2000 hours).

You've not done any of that. If you had, you wouldn't have said what you did about that clip as you would have known that is what fighting on the inside is like.

Have you never heard of the saying 'less is more'? If you want to spend so much time lashing about like someone that doesn't know how to even hold his Wing Chun form, testing out if you can take the pressure of someone firing all out on adrenaline only, then that's up to you dude.

Have you heard the saying "theoretical nonfighter"? To become a better surfer, you need to surf. If you want to become a better WCK fighter, you need to fight. How good you become will be directly proportional to how much quality sparring you do. Do little to none and that will be your skill level.

I prefer the more measured approach. A skillful exchange between two WCK practitioners actually looks nothing like a sansau match.

Your "skillful exchange" is playing around, and doesn't develop fighting skill. Fighting skill are those things that YOU can consistently and successfully perform under fighting conditions, not while playing around with other theoretical nonfighters. Go put yourself in that sort (like the clip) situation and see how much of what you do in your "skillful exchanges" work. Then ask yourself what you are preparing for if not that.

[LoneTiger108]

The kuit isn't knowledge -- it is direction for your practice.

I agree. Knowledge that belongs to coaches/sifus and NOT fighters/players. See where you are now?

No you didn't.

I put in about 3-4 hours a week of WCK sparring, and have done that for the past 10 years (that's 1500-2000 hours).

You've not done any of that. If you had, you wouldn't have said what you did about that clip as you would have known that is what fighting on the inside is like.

Listen. You're sounding like you know my boxing history? NOT. All I was saying is that I done more hours than that in 2 years. 3-4 hrs per week?? I would never put in so little!

Nevermind, coz your insults just keep on coming...

Have you heard the saying "theoretical nonfighter"? To become a better surfer, you need to surf. If you want to become a better WCK fighter, you need to fight. How good you become will be directly proportional to how much quality sparring you do. Do little to none and that will be your skill level.

This is my point T. I DON'T want to fight anyone let alone become a better competitive fighter! Sparring like the clip will only make you better at sparring like the clip. Your WCK will improve very little indeed imho, but your stamina may improve.

Your "skillful exchange" is playing around, and doesn't develop fighting skill. Fighting skill are those things that YOU can consistently and successfully perform under fighting conditions, not while playing around with other theoretical nonfighters. Go put yourself in that sort (like the clip) situation and see how much of what you do in your "skillful exchanges" work. Then ask yourself what you are preparing for if not that.

We're back to those insults again T and I do see others trying to suggest to you that what you're dribbling on about, although relevant to competitive fighting, it has little to do with actual fighting or skillful exchange.

Basically, do as you say or we will not improve!

Tell me. Have you done what I have done? Trained how I have? I know the answer is no. So if this is the case, why should I listen to you when you haven't even given my methods a try?

If you think that clip is a good promotion for WCK, then you are mistaken imho. In fact, it was worse than Alan's comp, but I don't want to go over all that stuff again! Just too boring...

[t_niehoff]

I agree. Knowledge that belongs to coaches/sifus and NOT fighters/players. See where you are now?

"Knowledge and understanding" is the domain of theoretical nonfighters. It is all intellectual, academic.

Skill isn't based in knowledge or understanding. Skill is based on performance.

Listen. You're sounding like you know my boxing history? NOT. All I was saying is that I done more hours than that in 2 years. 3-4 hrs per week?? I would never put in so little!

Nevermind, coz your insults just keep on coming...

No you didn't. Look, if you are sparring at intensity (and not just playing around) your body will take a beating, and not just from your opponent but from the demands placed on it, the exertion, etc. You're just talking out your ass.

This is my point T. I DON'T want to fight anyone let alone become a better competitive fighter! Sparring like the clip will only make you better at sparring like the clip. Your WCK will improve very little indeed imho, but your stamina may improve.

WCK is fighting. If you are not fighting, you are not DOING WCK. You may be practicing the curriculum but the curriculum isn't the art. Or you may just be training to fail. WCK is controlling your opponent while striking him (using the WCK toolbox). How do you develop skill doing that except BY doing that?

Yes, you get better fighting on the inside by fighting on the inside. And, you don't get any better fighting on the inside by not fighting on the inside.

We're back to those insults again T and I do see others trying to suggest to you that what you're dribbling on about, although relevant to competitive fighting, it has little to do with actual fighting or skillful exchange.

It doesn't matter whether you "compete" or not -- the point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. This is true if you want to be a competitive fighter or just want to learn to handle yourself.

Basically, do as you say or we will not improve!

No, I'm saying to look to what the proven, good fighters and fight trainers have to say about what you need to do -- the sort of training needed -- to develop good, solid, competent fighting skills. Yes, that is what I have done, and I am only repeating what I have learned but you can find this out on your own: just go train with some good fighters.

Tell me. Have you done what I have done? Trained how I have? I know the answer is no. So if this is the case, why should I listen to you when you haven't even given my methods a try?

Why would I want to do all kinds of silly things? It is well-established both by science and by results (from sport for example), what we need to do to develop fighting skill, regardless of the art. And that is you develop fighting skills by and through practicing fighting, i.e, sparring. That's it. You only get good at what you practice doing. Don't practice it, and you can't get good at it.

If you think that clip is a good promotion for WCK, then you are mistaken imho. In fact, it was worse than Alan's comp, but I don't want to go over all that stuff again! Just too boring...

Read what I fXcking wrote. I didn't say it was "good WCK", I said THAT is what a fight on the inside is going to look like, that is the situation/environment where you are going to need to be able to make your WCK work. THAT is what you need to prepare for. Those guys at least -- unlike most other WCK clips I see -- have the range, facing, and intensity level right. But they have a lot of work to do.

They would run over 99%of the WCK practitioners out there. The only ones they wouldn't run over are the ones who already are dealing with that.

[YungChun]

Wan Kam isn't displaying any skill -- he is displaying that he is using the drill/exercise chi sao to learn/teach the "proper" things (controlling while striking).

Can't agree here.. He certainly is displaying skill in ChiSao at the very least.. You mentioned that one should get "decent" at ChiSao before going to the application phase so since that clearly takes time, since clearly many Sifu can't even do what Wan Kam is doing, and it takes time and work to get there clearly there is skill in all of this....


Also you're too black and white in your thinking.. You have contradicted yourself more than once about what things are supposed to look like..as done by all fighters of all skill levels of all fighting styles.. Two scrubs trying to control each other in close range is not what all inside fighting looks like... There are many variables..

3 hours per week sparring? That amounts to 90 two minute rounds per week... or if you train every day 12 rounds of full contact per day... Hmmmmm.

You fight how you train... Whatever limits you place on yourself--what you think is possible/not possible--and you limit what will be possible..

A HUGE problem is that people are listening to folks who have little to no real skill tell them what to do -- so guess what? They too can't do it.

So, the disconnect in 'core to the floor' as seen in virtually all families ever shown fighting with Chun by your standards is a lack of correct information because they all lack experience? Even though the core may be correct? Even though the core is nothing like application, even though there are no examples of this correct application where we can clearly see the seeds?

The point is that "just doing that training" doesn't develop any skill, it is just to learn the tools. Once you have learned the tools, you don't need it anymore.

So how much is enough? What is the correct amount? As I said many Sifu can't even do much of the moves in ChiSao.. So those moves are not needed? Which ones are? What is it that must be learned in the training? What is it that is not needed?

I see a lot of blurry and unclear assertions.. Sifus can't do X,Y,Z in ChiSao which (according to you) doesn't require any skill, yet (according to you) that's not needed for application which only requires (according to you) some lesser amount of non-skill core training...and on and on.... Is that what Yip taught?

You once said, if they can't do it in a drill then they have no chance of doing it in application... But apparently this only applies to X but not Y and Z, all of which don't require skill because it's just the basic training...

Sorry, but it sounds like a haphazard theory riddled with inconsistencies, or at best an incomplete theory about what is and what is not skill, what is and what is not needed in the core "non-skillset" and why there is this universal problem of non transfer to the floor....(application) IOW your position isn't going anywhere..Other than, the generic 'sparring is essential' thing...

At best all this just muddies the waters..and doesn't by any stretch put together a coherent idea of what Chun is supposed to be, how it should be trained and why--be it in the "gun form" or in application.

[LoneTiger108]

No you didn't. Look, if you are sparring at intensity (and not just playing around) your body will take a beating, and not just from your opponent but from the demands placed on it, the exertion, etc. You're just talking out your ass.

I'll say it again for you as you seem to have trouble understanding me. You do not know how or what I have trained T. I'm tryiung to tell you that what you talk about has validity AND that I have trained like that for longer than you have, but you just refuse to hear it.

Your problemo bro, not mine...

WCK is fighting. If you are not fighting, you are not DOING WCK. You may be practicing the curriculum but the curriculum isn't the art.

I've never read as much bullsh!t in my life T. You repeat this mantra all the time and I will share with you this: WCK is the specific study of the knife and pole. Whatever 'empty-hand' skills you learn, are from the knife and the pole. So IN REALITY the only way your empty hand form can develop skill is through practising the knife and the pole. How mlong have you trained interactively with these weapons?

That's why we have the curriculum we have in WCK and it seems you do not...

Yes, you get better fighting on the inside by fighting on the inside. And, you don't get any better fighting on the inside by not fighting on the inside.

Taking the neck, as you're clip shows, is a valid 'inside' aim, but c'mon T. That's only 1 tech from the 108! AND although I agree that the inside game is a speciality of WCK, we cover all gates, all possibilities, and ultimately specialize in what we feel we are best at. One size fits all is just not what WCK is about imho and that is what you are always talking about.

It doesn't matter whether you "compete" or not -- the point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. This is true if you want to be a competitive fighter or just want to learn to handle yourself.

Yes it does matter. Competing isn't fighting. Why can't you see that?

As an example, I drill my legwork to attack the knee joint. It works. Now if I compete I have to re-drill the legwork to maybe hit the outside of the shin (the strongest part of the lower leg!) or the outside of the thigh (another strong part of the leg!)

Tell me, honestly, how is that helping my WCK? It may help with my stamina, as I've said, but my applyable technique has now been compromised for competition. It's okay if you understand you're doing that, but I'm telling you now, train for a long time in hitting areas that are strong will not help you on the street in a real fight! Fighting is dirty and dangerous mate, and so is WCK as I know it.

They (in the clip) would run over 99%of the WCK practitioners out there. The only ones they wouldn't run over are the ones who already are dealing with that.

And we learn to 'deal with that' at a very early stage. I'm not saying everyone does, but how I learnt definitely puts me in a positive place imo. But of course you will only rubbish my heritage now and compare me to others that are not me...

We specialize in 'defending our centreline' so these amateurs/beginners may never get the chance to pull off a neck grab or push through your rotations in the first place!

[LoneTiger108]

So, the disconnect in 'core to the floor' as seen in virtually all families ever shown fighting with Chun by your standards (t_neihoffs)is a lack of correct information because they all lack experience? Even though the core may be correct? Even though the core is nothing like application, even though there are no examples of this correct application where we can clearly see the seeds?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/...=1455280216175

I have mentioned before that my Sifu is currently using Facebook to upload various clips of himself teaching and I think you may find this one usefull if you want to understand core differences of looksau and chisau, and how to apply the three seed as an interactive exercise.

This is how I trained back in 1995, filmed a month or so ago with his current students.

[t_niehoff]

I'll say it again for you as you seem to have trouble understanding me. You do not know how or what I have trained T. I'm tryiung to tell you that what you talk about has validity AND that I have trained like that for longer than you have, but you just refuse to hear it.

Your problemo bro, not mine...

What are you talking about? I see how pro MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. train and they don't do 2000 hours of sparring in two years as you claimed -- it would be physically impossible. The boxers at my gym only spar 30 minutes in a 2 1/2 hour workout, and that's pretty standard.

I've never read as much bullsh!t in my life T. You repeat this mantra all the time and I will share with you this: WCK is the specific study of the knife and pole. Whatever 'empty-hand' skills you learn, are from the knife and the pole. So IN REALITY the only way your empty hand form can develop skill is through practising the knife and the pole. How mlong have you trained interactively with these weapons?

You can't learn or develop empty hand from the knife and pole -- the body mechanics, the movement/action, the problems, the solutions, etc., just about everything is different in each of those domains (empty hand, pole, knife).

That's why we have the curriculum we have in WCK and it seems you do not...

Another example of someone doing X to develop Y. That is the definition of poor training.

Taking the neck, as you're clip shows, is a valid 'inside' aim, but c'mon T. That's only 1 tech from the 108! AND although I agree that the inside game is a speciality of WCK, we cover all gates, all possibilities, and ultimately specialize in what we feel we are best at. One size fits all is just not what WCK is about imho and that is what you are always talking about.

What are you talking about? One technique from 108? WCK doesn't cover everything. But, it is really easy to see if your theory holds water, just go down to the closest MMA gym and have a go with the beginners.

Yes it does matter. Competing isn't fighting. Why can't you see that?

When you compete, what are you doing? Fighting. You are using your fighting skill (but in a competition, you are presumably facing a conditioned, skilled, opponent) to defeat an opponent. When you defend yourself on the str33t, what are you doing? You are using your fighting skill to defeat an opponent.

Yes, defending yourself isn't the same as a sport competition, but they BOTH require that you have fighting skills and that you use them successfully.

As an example, I drill my legwork to attack the knee joint. It works. Now if I compete I have to re-drill the legwork to maybe hit the outside of the shin (the strongest part of the lower leg!) or the outside of the thigh (another strong part of the leg!)

When I spar, I don't try to kick my opponent in the groin. For some reason, they don't like that. I may use a kick to the inside thigh or knee -- which is useful in its own way. Does this mean I can't kick to the groin if I am attacked on the street? That my training somehow will prevent me from doing that? If you develop your kicking skills -- and that includes being able to hit various targets -- can't you use your kicking skills in the gym, in a ring, in a cage, on the str33t, etc.?

Tell me, honestly, how is that helping my WCK? It may help with my stamina, as I've said, but my applyable technique has now been compromised for competition. It's okay if you understand you're doing that, but I'm telling you now, train for a long time in hitting areas that are strong will not help you on the street in a real fight! Fighting is dirty and dangerous mate, and so is WCK as I know it.

Your problem is that you haven't trained with any good sport fighters but have a (silly) theory about how sport training will "lock in" less-that-deadly technique.

The point of sport training is that you actually DO, realistically, under fighting conditions, those things that you want to train to do. So you actually get to practice doing X in fighting. In that way, you develop high levels of skill doing X in fighting. They understand that if you can't practice doing X in fighting, then you can't develop much in the way of skill doing X in fighting. It is only realistic training that develops realistic skill.

Using your kicking-the-knee example, if you can't do that realistically in sparring, you can't develop skill to do it in fighting. So the first time you ever get to try to do it for real is during the fight.

So which is better, A) a technique that you have done hundreds, perhaps thousands of times in fighting, something you have seen work, been able to tweak from that experience, etc. or B) something you have never done in fighting but believe should work (although you've never seen it work), that you have no real experience doing, etc.?

And we learn to 'deal with that' at a very early stage. I'm not saying everyone does, but how I learnt definitely puts me in a positive place imo. But of course you will only rubbish my heritage now and compare me to others that are not me...

We specialize in 'defending our centreline' so these amateurs/beginners may never get the chance to pull off a neck grab or push through your rotations in the first place!

The ONLY way to learn to deal with that is BY dealing with that -- otherwise, all you are learning and developing is a theory, a way that you hope will deal with that.

[Violent Designs]

terrance.

don't waste your energy mate.