A little WC during clinch practice

[HumbleWCGuy]

I have no problem with people noticing things. I do wonder however why people assume things and/or don't read posts preceding their own to understand the context of what's being done.

I also don't understand why people think they need to "correct" or teach others in arts they don't train in or have no idea of the level of training the poster has. I've trained in Muay Thai for over 20 years. Boxing for nearly the same. Wing Chun for longer.

Your thoughts are appreciated however.

I suppose that people have their own reasons. I mostly like to be helpful and like to share what I know.

I suppose that others are the same way. Some just project their own inadequacies on others (Dale Frank, T Niehoff, David Ross, and so on).

I think that you are being a little sensitive about my criticisms. I do like that you guys are training boxing as part of the inside fighting arsenal. I agree that you need to get lower than you might normally be on the inside, I was just pointing out that they needed to not lean forward especially onto each other. You admitted that it could have been crisper.

I also complimented you guys for practicing inside punching. I thought that fact that you had the good sense to work inside punching at all made your gym smarter than most. I think that inside punching is neglected.


Sorry that I missed what was happening in the background.

[HumbleWCGuy]

But let's chat about one aspect. Who here thinks that WC is a viable tool for clinch work?

It's a great tool. Its strong suite is initiation of a clinch if you ask me.

Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WeCwDDoRd0

[SAAMAG]

I suppose that people have their own reasons. I mostly like to be helpful and like to share what I know.

I suppose that others are the same way. Some just project their own inadequacies on others (Dale Frank, T Niehoff, David Ross, and so on).

I think that you are being a little sensitive about my criticisms. I do like that you guys are training boxing as part of the inside fighting arsenal. I agree that you need to get lower than you might normally be on the inside, I was just pointing out that they needed to not lean forward especially onto each other. You admitted that it could have been crisper.

I also complimented you guys for practicing inside punching. I thought that fact that you had the good sense to work inside punching at all made your gym smarter than most. I think that inside punching is neglected.


Sorry that I missed what was happening in the background.

No need to apologize for anything. Misunderstandings (from either party) can happen. Things always can be crisper, done better. What I like about video footage of training, is that one can see things that didn't notice during the act itself.

I was speaking with the guy in white today on the phone (as he's moved to another city since that footage) and we discussed some of the things that we each saw in the full footage of the entire clinch session. We both spotted the same flaws, things we'd never have known about otherwise.

It's a great tool. Its strong suite is initiation of a clinch if you ask me.

Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WeCwDDoRd0

I can't remember who the conversation was with a good while back...Victor maybe...but we discussed the idea that tan, bong, and fook were really tools to use in the clinch. Not chi sao, not gor sao, but in the CLINCH as wrestlers, greco players, thai's and so forth know it to be. One could even make the specific connection that biu and tan could be used to pierce and spread through someone else's double collar tie, or redirect an attempt of control. Bong to remove a neck grab from an inside starting point, fook to suppress and monitor a neutral grip.

It was theorized that the original intent of the movements was lost when people somewhere down the line simply stopped using it for fighting. Also theorized that like many other styles--it developed several tangents of sub-styles within it. But as time went on and it was watered down because it was no longer being tested, or further developed. Techniques were based on theory instead of reality and empirical evidence. No one ventured outside their doors any longer.

Over the years of working with WC vs WC, that captive training gave folks the impression that many of those drills "make sense" because they flow so well. WC was being developed as literally a chinese boxing form. (I even mentioned that some versions looked like it had origins that could have lied more with the spread of western boxing at the time than with ng mui or a bunch of monks in secret, depending on which history you subscribe to).

But if you look and train WC in a less myopic (and ethnocentristic) manner, you start to see it differently. When you train against all fighters, in all settings, and with proper resistance--coupled with your own body type and stylist preferences, it works BETTER than it did with the cookie cutter stuff you see most people do. It works in a way that functions in full contact, and you end up in full control. Akin to how a BJJ blue belt knows all the moves a black belt does, but the black belt knows how to apply it against real resistance in a real setting on a consistent basis.

My WC style then, has developed into a VERY close quarter method, and exists now only in the clinch range, with the low kicks now making more sense once you off balance the other guy. I have more control now that I've released the doctrinal crap that says tan is exactly here, and moves exactly there....2 mm more to the left. When you focus on the intent and the energy, you know have a freedom that allows it to function instead of governmental bodies that eliminate freedom to let it work for itself.

Does that make sense?

[GlennR]

No need to apologize for anything. Misunderstandings (from either party) can happen. Things always can be crisper, done better. What I like about video footage of training, is that one can see things that didn't notice during the act itself.

I was speaking with the guy in white today on the phone (as he's moved to another city since that footage) and we discussed some of the things that we each saw in the full footage of the entire clinch session. We both spotted the same flaws, things we'd never have known about otherwise.



I can't remember who the conversation was with a good while back...Victor maybe...but we discussed the idea that tan, bong, and fook were really tools to use in the clinch. Not chi sao, not gor sao, but in the CLINCH as wrestlers, greco players, thai's and so forth know it to be. One could even make the specific connection that biu and tan could be used to pierce and spread through someone else's double collar tie, or redirect an attempt of control. Bong to remove a neck grab from an inside starting point, fook to suppress and monitor a neutral grip.

It was theorized that the original intent of the movements was lost when people somewhere down the line simply stopped using it for fighting. Also theorized that like many other styles--it developed several tangents of sub-styles within it. But as time went on and it was watered down because it was no longer being tested, or further developed. Techniques were based on theory instead of reality and empirical evidence. No one ventured outside their doors any longer.

Over the years of working with WC vs WC, that captive training gave folks the impression that many of those drills "make sense" because they flow so well. WC was being developed as literally a chinese boxing form. (I even mentioned that some versions looked like it had origins that could have lied more with the spread of western boxing at the time than with ng mui or a bunch of monks in secret, depending on which history you subscribe to).

But if you look and train WC in a less myopic (and ethnocentristic) manner, you start to see it differently. When you train against all fighters, in all settings, and with proper resistance--coupled with your own body type and stylist preferences, it works BETTER than it did with the cookie cutter stuff you see most people do. It works in a way that functions in full contact, and you end up in full control. Akin to how a BJJ blue belt knows all the moves a black belt does, but the black belt knows how to apply it against real resistance in a real setting on a consistent basis.

My WC style then, has developed into a VERY close quarter method, and exists now only in the clinch range, with the low kicks know making more sense. I have more control now that I've released the doctrinal crap that says tan is exactly here, and moves exactly there....2 mm more to the left. When you focus on the intent and the energy, you know have a freedom that allows it to function instead of governmental bodies that eliminate freedom to let it work for itself.

Does that make sense?

Hey Samaag
I basically agree with your entire post here, a bit busy and will respond in detail tomorrow

[chris bougeard]

@SAAMAG your last post was great buddy. Tan, bong and fook work very well in the clinch ime, we do a lot of gloved sparring and punching into clinch where these tools work very well to subdue and control in this range.

Be great to see some more of your clips

[HumbleWCGuy]

I can't remember who the conversation was with a good while back...Victor maybe...but we discussed the idea that tan, bong, and fook were really tools to use in the clinch. Not chi sao, not gor sao, but in the CLINCH as wrestlers, greco players, thai's and so forth know it to be. One could even make the specific connection that biu and tan could be used to pierce and spread through someone else's double collar tie, or redirect an attempt of control. Bong to remove a neck grab from an inside starting point, fook to suppress and monitor a neutral grip.

It was theorized that the original intent of the movements was lost when people somewhere down the line simply stopped using it for fighting. Also theorized that like many other styles--it developed several tangents of sub-styles within it. But as time went on and it was watered down because it was no longer being tested, or further developed. Techniques were based on theory instead of reality and empirical evidence. No one ventured outside their doors any longer.

Over the years of working with WC vs WC, that captive training gave folks the impression that many of those drills "make sense" because they flow so well. WC was being developed as literally a chinese boxing form. (I even mentioned that some versions looked like it had origins that could have lied more with the spread of western boxing at the time than with ng mui or a bunch of monks in secret, depending on which history you subscribe to).

But if you look and train WC in a less myopic (and ethnocentristic) manner, you start to see it differently. When you train against all fighters, in all settings, and with proper resistance--coupled with your own body type and stylist preferences, it works BETTER than it did with the cookie cutter stuff you see most people do. It works in a way that functions in full contact, and you end up in full control. Akin to how a BJJ blue belt knows all the moves a black belt does, but the black belt knows how to apply it against real resistance in a real setting on a consistent basis.

My WC style then, has developed into a VERY close quarter method, and exists now only in the clinch range, with the low kicks know making more sense. I have more control now that I've released the doctrinal crap that says tan is exactly here, and moves exactly there....2 mm more to the left. When you focus on the intent and the energy, you know have a freedom that allows it to function instead of governmental bodies that eliminate freedom to let it work for itself.

Does that make sense?

Yea... I know that some people see their WC that way. I never have. I have always used it at an entry system. I have always gotten on the inside and grabbed/clinched, thrown knees, and elbows. I have not used WC as a wrestler like you are saying. At most, I am using it to gain leverage over people's grabs and blocks.

I would say if I am looking to apply dirty boxing types of things, I focus on applying the immovable elbow for leverage which also implies rolling the elbow to strike (bong sao),circling the hands to disengage to strike (heun sao), and so on.

Certainly, we have over and under hooks for controlling, but I never felt like that was the a point of emphasis for WC. Although, I could see someone adopting it as something that worked well for them. I would not stop a guy with wrestling experience from clinching up a guy that way.


Mostly though, once I am on the inside, I have always tried to smother guys with the "plumb" so a lot of the "WC wrestling" as you describe, never really came up in WC. I have trained it in grappling practice of course.

I see WC as a balanced upright art. What makes it unique is that it is one of the few traditional arts that has credible clinch fighting. I do not accept the idea that the clinch fighting is the whole of WC though.

[SAAMAG]

Well it could very well be a case of the brain trying to make sense of the black ink blob, or seeing a face in the clouds. But physically, it seems to fit better for me. The double head/neck grab in Thai clinching (which btw pluum means "clinching" in general, it doesn't denote a specific grip) I could say is a seung man geng sao or double neck pulling hand. Is it the same thing less semantics? Or am I trying to simply make the WC "recognizable" in the realm of combat that I am accustomed to?

Either way--over the years this epiphany seems to be working even under duress. That's a good sign to me since it was developed with a pragmatic system, having gone from theory to road testing and been refined again based on empirical data.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Well it could very well be a case of the brain trying to make sense of the black ink blob, or seeing a face in the clouds. But physically, it seems to fit better for me. The double head/neck grab in Thai clinching (which btw pluum means "clinching" in general, it doesn't denote a specific grip) I could say is a seung man geng sao or double neck pulling hand. Is it the same thing less semantics? Or am I trying to simply make the WC "recognizable" in the realm of combat that I am accustomed to?

Either way--over the years this epiphany seems to be working even under duress. That's a good sign to me since it was developed with a pragmatic system, having gone from theory to road testing and been refined again based on empirical data.

Thanks, for the terminology correction.

This is just a general rant not directed at you in particular.
I think of WC like boxing. I am going to show a guy a lot of stuff and he is going to find what fits him: Boxer, slugger, clincher, finesse kicker, power kicker, volume puncher, and on and on. There is a lot there. No one way is right. It's just ridiculous when people say, "WC is this because it is what works." Perhaps it is what works for you or your group? I find that contextually, it pretty much all works. I started WC when I was 14 so I was weak compared to the adults but faster and more agile. As I grew bigger and stronger, my WC evolved. Therefore, I know that WC works a lot of different ways.

[Wayfaring]

I can't remember who the conversation was with a good while back...Victor maybe...but we discussed the idea that tan, bong, and fook were really tools to use in the clinch. Not chi sao, not gor sao, but in the CLINCH as wrestlers, greco players, thai's and so forth know it to be. One could even make the specific connection that biu and tan could be used to pierce and spread through someone else's double collar tie, or redirect an attempt of control. Bong to remove a neck grab from an inside starting point, fook to suppress and monitor a neutral grip.

Agree. I view WC shapes flowing into clinch/wrestling as an augmentation to WC. WC's strategy in the clinch is to control, strike, pursue. Grappling arts is to control, take down.

It was theorized that the original intent of the movements was lost when people somewhere down the line simply stopped using it for fighting. Also theorized that like many other styles--it developed several tangents of sub-styles within it. But as time went on and it was watered down because it was no longer being tested, or further developed. Techniques were based on theory instead of reality and empirical evidence. No one ventured outside their doors any longer.

Over the years of working with WC vs WC, that captive training gave folks the impression that many of those drills "make sense" because they flow so well. WC was being developed as literally a chinese boxing form. (I even mentioned that some versions looked like it had origins that could have lied more with the spread of western boxing at the time than with ng mui or a bunch of monks in secret, depending on which history you subscribe to).

Great points. Whenever any martial art strays from the original intent of fighting, IMO it becomes dance, theater, a demo art.

But if you look and train WC in a less myopic (and ethnocentristic) manner, you start to see it differently. When you train against all fighters, in all settings, and with proper resistance--coupled with your own body type and stylist preferences, it works BETTER than it did with the cookie cutter stuff you see most people do. It works in a way that functions in full contact, and you end up in full control. Akin to how a BJJ blue belt knows all the moves a black belt does, but the black belt knows how to apply it against real resistance in a real setting on a consistent basis.

I have the same view.

Most BJJ blue belts under good instruction can apply moves against real resistance in a real setting consistently. Why is this? Because the average person when they get a blue belt have been through an estimated 1250 live rounds of rolling. Can we say that about most who have obtained their first rank in WCK? IMO if we can't we need to change how we are training.

My WC style then, has developed into a VERY close quarter method, and exists now only in the clinch range, with the low kicks now making more sense once you off balance the other guy. I have more control now that I've released the doctrinal crap that says tan is exactly here, and moves exactly there....2 mm more to the left. When you focus on the intent and the energy, you know have a freedom that allows it to function instead of governmental bodies that eliminate freedom to let it work for itself.

Does that make sense?

I agree that removing the dogma and doctrinal crap frees up the learning. IMO this isn't rocket science. If people would actually train live and fight with WCK consistently these are things that come with the repititions.

Actually, here's a challenge for those who like to say "that's not WCK" when viewing clips like this. Take your WCK, and in training, perform 1000 rounds of 3-5 minute duration, all live against resisting opponents. If you can, try to get 300 of those rounds in against fighters from other disciplines, like boxing, mma, mt, karate, tkd, etc. See what repitition teaches you there.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually, here's a challenge for those who like to say "that's not WCK" when viewing clips like this. Take your WCK, and in training, perform 1000 rounds of 3-5 minute duration, all live against resisting opponents. If you can, try to get 300 of those rounds in against fighters from other disciplines, like boxing, mma, mt, karate, tkd, etc. See what repition teaches you there.

Incidentally, that's about half as much sparring as I did during any one year of some of my more productive years of training.

[SAAMAG]

Thanks, for the terminology correction.

This is just a general rant not directed at you in particular.
I think of WC like boxing. I am going to show a guy a lot of stuff and he is going to find what fits him: Boxer, slugger, clincher, finesse kicker, power kicker, volume puncher, and on and on. There is a lot there. No one way is right. It's just ridiculous when people say, "WC is this because it is what works." Perhaps it is what works for you or your group? I find that contextually, it pretty much all works. I started WC when I was 14 so I was weak compared to the adults but faster and more agile. As I grew bigger and stronger, my WC evolved. Therefore, I know that WC works a lot of different ways.

I absolutely agree. Its the same way with any combat style? Karate, MT, Wrestling, MMA, etc. Fighters of the same style develop a personal style that will suit his or her tendencies. As long as you can make it work that's what matters.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I absolutely agree. Its the same way with any combat style? Karate, MT, Wrestling, MMA, etc. Fighters of the same style develop a personal style that will suit his or her tendencies. As long as you can make it work that's what matters.

When I first started, I was very much a counter fighter. I would back off use a jut and throw stiff leads or rear hand strikes. I got of a lot of side kicks in those days. If someone got close to me, I would throw them to avoid taking a bunch of shots. I had a pretty credible jumping round kick believe it or not.

Now I am very much cut off people. I am looking to make them trade. I like the clinch. I throw a lot of round kicks too.

[GlennR]

I can't remember who the conversation was with a good while back...Victor maybe...but we discussed the idea that tan, bong, and fook were really tools to use in the clinch.

Thats my take on it pretty much now.

Not chi sao, not gor sao, but in the CLINCH as wrestlers, greco players, thai's and so forth know it to be. One could even make the specific connection that biu and tan could be used to pierce and spread through someone else's double collar tie, or redirect an attempt of control. Bong to remove a neck grab from an inside starting point, fook to suppress and monitor a neutral grip.

Yep

It was theorized that the original intent of the movements was lost when people somewhere down the line simply stopped using it for fighting.

Im putting that forward as line of the year

Also theorized that like many other styles--it developed several tangents of sub-styles within it.

Agreed, and as you stated above, without a way to measure (fight), there was nothing to stop some of these tangents going of in all directions

But as time went on and it was watered down because it was no longer being tested, or further developed. Techniques were based on theory instead of reality and empirical evidence. No one ventured outside their doors any longer.

Agreed

But if you look and train WC in a less myopic (and ethnocentristic) manner, you start to see it differently. When you train against all fighters, in all settings, and with proper resistance--coupled with your own body type and stylist preferences, it works BETTER than it did with the cookie cutter stuff you see most people do. It works in a way that functions in full contact, and you end up in full control. Akin to how a BJJ blue belt knows all the moves a black belt does, but the black belt knows how to apply it against real resistance in a real setting on a consistent basis.

Ive always believed that you can "feel" a good WC fighter when you are sparring him. The best guys, as you say, control, the opponent in that clinch/pocket range without resorting to actual grabbing..... capturing balance and striking... its all there in tan, fook, bong in conjunction with the YKJM stance training.

My WC style then, has developed into a VERY close quarter method, and exists now only in the clinch range, with the low kicks now making more sense once you off balance the other guy. I have more control now that I've released the doctrinal crap that says tan is exactly here, and moves exactly there....2 mm more to the left. When you focus on the intent and the energy, you know have a freedom that allows it to function instead of governmental bodies that eliminate freedom to let it work for itself.

Thats exactly how is see it

Does that make sense?

100%

Great post!