how not to fight a boxer

[Ultimatewingchun]

So let me see if I got this right, Paul. TN blasts TWC, says it doesn't work, details errors in Phil's demo (and there are errors in it)....you acknowledge that the guys that Phil and Rahsun are training can fight...but the attacks by TN on TWC continue nonetheless....

and when he's asked to show (or at least give details) about what he believes is the correct way - and how he implements it, for example, against boxers - the result is that he gives a generic non-answer and points to Randy Couture.

And in the process - makes the claim that he, personally, while using his non-detailed generic wing chun - finds it easy to deal with very good pure boxers who train in boxing gyms.

And I'm being whiney if I don't believe that?

Okey dokey, Paul.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And I'm being whiney if I don't believe that?

Yes.

LMAO !!

It was a general rant on ALL you whiney *****es.

Guys, seriously, it's pretty clear that T's issues with you is NOT about what you are doing AS MUCH as it is about the opinion that it isn't WC.
I don't think you are ever going to change his mind so perhaps it would be best to put him on ignore.
Truly.

[YungChun]

So let me see if I got this right, Paul. TN blasts TWC, says it doesn't work, details errors in Phil's demo (and there are errors in it)....you acknowledge that the guys that Phil and Rahsun are training can fight...but the attacks by TN on TWC continue nonetheless....

and when he's asked to show (or at least give details) about what he believes is the correct way - and how he implements it, for example, against boxers - the result is that he gives a generic non-answer and points to Randy Couture.

And in the process - makes the claim that he, personally, while using his non-detailed generic wing chun - finds it easy to deal with very good pure boxers who train in boxing gyms.

And I'm being whiney if I don't believe that?

Okey dokey, Paul.

Let's see T's written 2 billion posts about VT's method.. He has said what he does in fighting, control, break them down, attach, punch his way in to do this but you say he is too vague and this proves he is FOS?

WTF do you want him to tell you? A moment to moment rehash of his last match? Who did what? Which tool was used at each moment?

So if we are talking skating... You want to know exactly how he skates? How do you skate? Well if you can't explain exactly how you skate then you must be FOS... How the f#ck do you tell someone how you skate? How you fight? Other than a general method? In BJJ how do you fight? Well we take them down and submit them... But how? WTF do you mean how?

Q. How do you take down a good boxer?

A. The same f#cking way you take down anyone---by doing it, by failing and then succeeding and repeating the process...


It all sounds pretty silly to me..

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=m1k3;1073730]This has got to be one of the best threads ever.

LMFAO!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good grief...any way you look at it.

The light was dim but the noise was high.

joy chaudhuri

[chusauli]

LOL!

"You have offended my famiwy, and you have offended the Shaolin Temple."

LOL!

Let's look at this logically. The way I see it:

1) If Vic meets T and beats him up, he's got another lawsuit on his hand (like the Parlati-Draheim case). Result - a lot of hot air and money wasted, and aren't you old enough to have learned your lesson?

2) T beats up Parlati, Parlati then sues T. But Parlati will still not see things T's way.

3) They never meet and all this internet bravado continues on for years.

4) Both have mutual respect after meeting, and both crosstrain in each other's version of WCK. (Highly unlikely!)

Perhaps I missed something?

All in all, its like a car accident...

[YungChun]

"You have offended my famiwy...."

LMAO! Exactly how he said it... That was funny...

Kiazi's children. Their faces wet.

[KPM]

I'm sitting in a hotel room in Killeen Tx just waiting around to get on an airplane headed for Kuwait. So I brought a bunch of my WCK DVDs and have started to review some of them. I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!


http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u/33/SLFWdM3qwfU

---Phil used a Lop Sao in the video above, and Alan uses a Biu Sao, but the idea is the same...they both controlled the strike at the elbow while stepping in and out to that side.

Terence said:
1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent,

---Alan is at the same distance that Phil shows. This is punching distance without being within "clinching" distance. I think Phil's point was that if you are that close, you won't be able to see anything coming. If you are that close, you should already be attaching and controlling, not blocking hay-makers.

where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.

---Right. But that wasn't what Phil was demonstrating, nor what Alan was demonstrating on his video. What they were both showing was defending against a punch BEFORE you get into that distance.



3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body.

---Alan also showed stepping out and to the side, catching the opponent at the elbow and unbalancing him. Apparently he thinks there will be time to see this coming. Again, it depends on the distance....as Phil pointed out in his clip.


4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

---Yea, I gotta admit, that one was pretty silly! Sorry Phil!


5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.

---That's exactly how Alan shows it on his video as well. Now granted, he has Neil and Aaron drilling this technique "live" in the following section. But Phil only had a 2 minute clip, not an entire DVD.


6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.

---He did a PaK Sau against the jab, exactly what Alan shows on his DVD. Phil wasn't reaching any more than Alan does.



7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.

---It was a 2 minute demo. On Alan's video, in the 2 minutes where he is showing the same defense, he isn't too worried about his partner's rear hand either.


So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?

---If they are, they aren't that different from Alan Orr's WCK "principles." I wish I had the ability to post that clip from Alan's DVD so people could compare it to Phil's clip. I'm telling you....they aren't that different!

[Wayfaring]

I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!

Now that's the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time!!!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well I guess Robert Chu picked up something after all during those two weeks he spent with William Cheung back in 1984 - and whatever TWC vids he's been watching since then - and passed some of the good stuff onto Alan. Too bad Terence missed that part during his sessions with Robert.

[YungChun]

Right nothing attached there...

[bennyvt]

Come on victor if you or phil do it it has to be wrong. bbut if alan does it, its different, didnt you know that. Like his flying armbar on the dummy, we are just ignorant

[t_niehoff]

It's like I mentioned over PM, when Terrence showed how what Phil was demoing was incorrect based on what he was doing and then showed WHy with those two CM videos, he made it about what was going on.

OK.

The moment he through in his snide remark about "old, legit styles of WC", he stopped making it about the "legitimacy" of the practice and made it about "legitimacy of lineages" and who the **** gives a **** about that?

When I talk about the "old legit branches of WCK" what I am referring to is that there is a core method -- which is what WCK is all about. WCK is a skill. A skill. That skill is implementing the method, using that method in fighting. The tools are to implement THAT method. That method is WCK. It's been a part of WCK since the beginning.

WCK is not doing whatever the hell you please. It is not kickboxing.

This is not just a my-lineage-is-right-and-yours-is-wrong b1tchfest. Rather, it is a recognition that there exists a core method that some people -- like Cheung -- never apparently learned.

When people like Victor argue that this isn't the case, I refer them to these older lineages so that they don't need to take my word for it -- they can do the research, the investigation, themselves. They can see that what I am saying is in fact true.

[Ultimatewingchun]

But of course William Cheung learned VT from Yip man - and had an enormous reputation within the Yip clan for what he was able to do with it.

The fact that he also learned another system that had more footwork, a central line concept in addition to the centerline - both of which made for a more mobile approach and more efficiences at a longer range than the crash and burn inside approach did - that's a good thing - not a bad thing.

Oh wait, I forgot, he made the second system all up.

No way that's true, but even it were: the system still works - and that's a good thing.

So what's your problem, exactly?

Personal stuff?

[t_niehoff]

I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!

Yes, it is -- it is very different. I just went back and rewatched it.

To start with, the person throwing the haymaker is in range (to actually hit), so is Alan, so there is no "reaching", Alan does not stay out (as Phil does) but gets in CLOSE, Alan does not try to "step off the line", etc. It is night and dsy.

---Phil used a Lop Sao in the video above, and Alan uses a Biu Sao, but the idea is the same...they both controlled the strike at the elbow while stepping in and out to that side.

No. Alan uses a bil sao as he charges forward -- not to the side -- and is striking with the bil sao to the opponent arm (his upper arm).

Terence said:
1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent,

---Alan is at the same distance that Phil shows. This is punching distance without being within "clinching" distance.

WTF are you talking about? Phil is out of range and Alan - and his demo partner - are BOTH in range (they can touch the other guy without moving).

I think Phil's point was that if you are that close, you won't be able to see anything coming. If you are that close, you should already be attaching and controlling, not blocking hay-makers.

Phil didn't SAY that. He said you can't see so you want to step out. Stop making things up.

where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.

---Right. But that wasn't what Phil was demonstrating, nor what Alan was demonstrating on his video. What they were both showing was defending against a punch BEFORE you get into that distance.

It makes absolutely no sense for Phil to START in close (where we ultimately want to be), explain how this is NOT where you want to be since you can't see, and move to the outside to then deal with his punches, if he really wants to be on the inside. Alan, on the other hand, starts on the inside and continues forward, into his opponent -- when he performs the biu sao he ends up within a half foot of his opponent's body. What Alan and Phil are showing are two very different things.

3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body.

---Alan also showed stepping out and to the side, catching the opponent at the elbow and unbalancing him. Apparently he thinks there will be time to see this coming. Again, it depends on the distance....as Phil pointed out in his clip.

No. Alan moved FORWARD into his opponent, not off to the side. He CLOSED IN. There was no side-step. He did that to hit with his body -- using his biu sao to the opponent's arm.

4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

---Yea, I gotta admit, that one was pretty silly! Sorry Phil!

It was all silly. But he is parroting how Cheung teaches.

5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.

---That's exactly how Alan shows it on his video as well. Now granted, he has Neil and Aaron drilling this technique "live" in the following section. But Phil only had a 2 minute clip, not an entire DVD.

Alan shows how when you hit the opponent with your body (with the biu sao) it will destroy the opponent's structure so that he can't hit with #2 -- he talks about that as he shows it. He even explains why happens if you don't hit with yoru body (when you reach, you can't break his structure and he hits you with #2, and his partner demos that). Do you not pay attention?

And, as you indicate, after the demo, they do it live - where the opponent can throw #2.

6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.

---He did a PaK Sau against the jab, exactly what Alan shows on his DVD. Phil wasn't reaching any more than Alan does.

Keith, seriously, you must be blind. When Alan shows his pak sao it is again hitting the opponent's arm with his body, he is in range when he does it, he is doing it to break his opponent's structure, etc. It is night and day. Do they both show a pak sao? Yes, but that is the only thing they have in common.

7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.

---It was a 2 minute demo. On Alan's video, in the 2 minutes where he is showing the same defense, he isn't too worried about his partner's rear hand either.

Alan shows and explains why his opponent won't be able to hit with the rear since he is hitting the opponent and breaking his structure. And he shows how his other hand will come into play to stop anything should he not break structure.

So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?

---If they are, they aren't that different from Alan Orr's WCK "principles." I wish I had the ability to post that clip from Alan's DVD so people could compare it to Phil's clip. I'm telling you....they aren't that different!

And I'm telling you that you are blind. And this only illustrates why I think it a waste of time to put up videos. You don't see the problems with Phil's video, you don't see how what Alan does is completely different in every respect, etc. If you can't see it, why should anyone bother to post something? You are looking with YOUR eyes -- and you can only see at your level.

And, this is to all the people who jumped on what Keith posted: you should be ashamed of yourselves. NONE of you actually did any work yourself, actually bothered to look at the video in question, and see for yourself. You were all too happy to accept what someone else said because it suited what you wanted to believe. And while none of you actually took the time to check, or even to think about it, you were willing to take the time to post your opinion on something that you had no firsthand experience with, something you did not know.

[t_niehoff]

But of course William Cheung learned VT from Yip man - and had an enormous reputation within the Yip clan for what he was able to do with it.

No, he learned WCK at Yip's school. He did not have an "enormous reputation" that is mostly fiction. He had a reputation among some of the other teenagers.

The fact that he also learned another system that had more footwork, a central line concept in addition to the centerline - both of which made for a more mobile approach and more efficiences at a longer range than the crash and burn inside approach did - that's a good thing - not a bad thing.

No, he made all that stuff up.

Oh wait, I forgot, he made the second system all up.

No way that's true, but even it were: the system still works - and that's a good thing.

So what's your problem, exactly?

No, it doesn't work. And, much of his made up nonsense is contrary to what you are doing in WCK.

Personal stuff?

No. I object to the bullsh1t, the dishonesty, etc.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...37&postcount=1