How to defend the Thai roundhouse kick?

[t_niehoff]

vankuen wrote:

Funny how people complain about the what if's...when the only person that what if'd posted just before me, and it was in jest. I could see someone complain if it was happening...but cmon people....the magazines are full of this stuff...but do you stop buying the magazines because of it? Give it a rest. If you don't want to see the what if's ....don't read the thread. Period.

**I'm always surprised by the "solid reasoning" behind so many of these posts -- here's another example of "if it is widespread it must be good" thinking. What that really says is "I don't know what I'm talking about, but lots of others do the same thing, so it can't be bad." Brilliant. Just brilliant.

**And then it's topped off with that common retort used by all those that lack the ability to intelligently defend their "beliefs": "I don't want to hear dissenting views, go away." Brilliant. Just Brilliant.

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

"When he kicks with his right (I'm assuming it's above the waist) are you hitting with your right hand? Where is your body? Which way did you step, into the area above the knee so the hammerfist is tight near your body, or out to the right, or...?

And is the hammerfist going straight in at rightangles to the direction of his kick? Or is it going at an angle (in which case what angle)? Is it going down?

Is your elbow down like chum jarn or out like a low bong or a short range low gaun?

There you go...! Sorry, just having trouble picturing it, and how you would safely move from the hammerfist to the leg-catch."


Mat:

In the example I gave wherein it ends in a leg-catch...I would be going for it if he's kicking with his right leg as an attack against the back of my left thigh or knee area...and the hammerfist is tight near my body...with a very slight step back and to my right with my right foot...immediately preceding lifting my left leg.

or I would use the leg-catch after the hammerfist move if he's kicking with his left leg going for the back of my right thigh/knee area...

In other words...we are in cross front stances to begin with (my left front vs. his left front stance...or my right front stance vs. his right front stance...and he kicks with his rear leg).

So if he kicks with his right - as in your example - I would be lifting my left leg and hammerfisting with my left hand/forearm.

The elbow of the hammerfist is down and in close to my body (often I've found that while my hammer "fist" hit's just below his knee by his upper shin area - my elbow is simultaneously hitting his ankle/foot area.

That should give you some idea of the angle used in the hammerfist strike. Then comes the leg-catch.

[Vajramusti]

IF you have to figure out whether it is a Thai roundhouse kick
you are already behind in timing.

[t_niehoff]

YongChun wrote:

RVR – that’s totally wrong. Wing Chun is a principles based system and yet it also has techniques.

**Everytime I hear the term "principle-based system" it makes my @ss twitch -- it's just another often repeated myth, especially one theoreticians love. The term is meaningless. Sure WCK has principles, so does many other fighting methods.

If you are creative enough and have to ability to analyze something then you can actually discuss a situation in fighting from many perspectives including a technique base, a principles base and from a base of actual experience. If someone got their ankle broken from a leg lift with the toe pointing down, and writes an article that advises people to not do that, then this is useful. If someone develops a new counter to a takedown technique, then that’s useful. Of course to real men that’s not useful because real men learn from their own experience and not from the experience of others.

**What all your examples do is begin with application and then state a principle based on the experience. That's exactly my point.


RVR – surprising as it may sound a few people who have written articles have actually been able to swim. Another thing I found surprising is that there are actually fighters who have actually discussed something. Of course no one reads that trash. Real men wouldn’t get caught dead reading a magazine.

**There is nothing wrong with articles, they have their place. But discussions of "use X to defeat Y" aren't useful. See below.

RVR – How can you have tools if no one has given you any tools to work with?

**I said you don't begin with "theory"; you do begin with the tools as I said before. See below.

I guess you mean your own tools that you have developed when a real Thai boxer splinters up your legs. You shouldn’t read anything about Thai boxers first. You shouldn’t read about the type of conditioning needed to fight them. You should just go and fight them. If your not a wimp that’s what you do. Your tools will automatically come from that. If you get kicked often enough then you eventually learn. Don’t waste the teacher’s time by asking him something. Real fighters fight and don’t ask questions.

**You keep mocking my postition with "real fighters don't do this or that" or "you're a wimp" and so forth. That sort of thing just displays intellectual bankruptcy -- it's a rather common form of a fallacious argument and when you see it you know that it is the "last resort" of someone that can't marshall a sound, rational argument. In other words, it is the cry of someone acknowledging defeat but feeling the need to say something.

**First you get a tool, develop the tool, then put it into fighting. In trying to use that tool in fighting (and become more successful in application), one will find the principles.

RVR – some people they read the more useful responses in this thread to come up with a tool or maybe learn about some variation that they haven't tried before. Then they go and try that in their club. Then if it doesn’t work they come back to the forum and ask those who have experience what the problem is. The helpful members will try to give their perspective on the situation. But real fighters would tell you to stop asking questions and just fight. Real men fight, they don’t talk.

**What you fail to see is that the very question, or rather the need to ask that question, indicates a failure in >how< they are training in the first place -- in their approach. See below.

**No, the linked sets contain the tools of WCK arranged thematically.

RVR – my forms contain principles for combat. They contain ideas. My forms contain ideas for developing power, for developing mobility while maintaining root. My forms contain the idea of the centerline, of economy of movement, of the changes possible. They develop a calmness to be transposed over into fighting. My forms have ideas for attack and defense. My pole form has the idea for attack and for defense. My forms have ideas and they have the techniques and tools.

**All those things come from either developing the tool (contained in the form) or from application, from seeing how to best use the tool. You are "reading" them into the form after the fact. Show an absolute beginner the "form" and they won't be able to tell you the "ideas"; all they see are movements. The "ideas" behind those movements come either from someone else (they tell you what they mean, or more accurately, what they think they mean) or from your own experience. If they come from someone else, they need to be validated from experience (fighting) as what they think they mean may not be fully accurate. This is why I say that you don't learn to fight from the forms, you "learn" the forms (the ideas behind them) from fighting.

RVR – there are more ways to teach a beginner than to have them pound each other out to learn the hard way how to fight. I guess you don’t have experience to teach different kinds of people? Our beginners learn the form, learn applications, learn drills, ask questions and fight. That’s what they do. Your beginners just suit up and fight. Two different ways to teach. The latter way is of course the easier way to teach. You don’t need to do anything. No forms, no drills, no explanations. Just fight. All learning comes from fighting. If your not fighting your wasting your time.

**The trouble with the "what if" questions is that they don't take the nature of fighting into account and so any answer will be incomplete, a poor answer (it may be a good answer for demos but not fighting). You can't look at it from the perspective of "how do I deal with a thai kick" because there are too many variables to give a good answer. For example, what is the distance, what are the relative reaches, relative speeds, relative strenghts, how are we standing in relation to each other, are we breaking contact, am I entering, what else is going on, what have I just done, etc. Depending on the answer to these and other questions, I may need to respond differently (in demos, you don't have to deal with this). And equally importantly, good fighters don't just let you get ready and set and then throw a thai kick, but set you up, get you to move, get you to do something, feint or fake, use it in combinations, get you to shift your weight, misjudge your distance, etc. So if your "answer" is to front kick, for example, but he gets you to shift your weight forward or step or some other way commit your leg, then you won't have it available to kick (in demos you don't have to deal wtih this). One should *begin* from how that person moves during fighting (that's the starting point we should work from rather than making the person confrom to how we think they should move or respond) -- we all have our own idiosyncratic way of moving. That is the base from which to begin "adding" responses: you work from the clay (the individual make-up). It won't help someone to tell them to answer the thai kick such-and-such a way if that doesn't fit into their individual, natural movement in fighting (of course, this assumes you are fighting so as to see what that is; in demos you don't have to deal with this). This is why we need to progressively add each tool into their fighting and fight from the beginning -- this allows the student to individualize the method for himself from the very beginning, which is necessary since every additional piece will "fit" (be adapted) into that individualized approach.

Regards,

Terence

[Redd]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
vankuen wrote:

Funny how people complain about the what if's...when the only person that what if'd posted just before me, and it was in jest. I could see someone complain if it was happening...but cmon people....the magazines are full of this stuff...but do you stop buying the magazines because of it? Give it a rest. If you don't want to see the what if's ....don't read the thread. Period.

**I'm always surprised by the "solid reasoning" behind so many of these posts -- here's another example of "if it is widespread it must be good" thinking. What that really says is "I don't know what I'm talking about, but lots of others do the same thing, so it can't be bad." Brilliant. Just brilliant.

**And then it's topped off with that common retort used by all those that lack the ability to intelligently defend their "beliefs": "I don't want to hear dissenting views, go away." Brilliant. Just Brilliant.

Terence

A poor track record for mind reading and a high insult ratio.

[t_niehoff]

Redd,

I don't claim to be a mindreader, and my "insults" are directed at the "reasoning methods" cited , not the person. But I understand that some may have difficulty making that distinction -- but a criticism of their argument (or training method) is not a personal attack. And btw, I noticed you didn't mention your support of vankuen's "reasoning".

On a related note, one common theme I see reoccur in many forms is the question of "why do I keep bringing up fighting?" And I wonder when I see that if the thinking is "let's stop all this talk about fighting and get back to discussing WCK"!? From my perspective, I don't see how we can separate the two; how can you separate learning to swim from swimming itself? How can you separate the training method (getting in the pool) from the activity itself? It seems to me that if we are not talking about fighting or training to fight, we are not talking about WCK.

You cited my intentionally provocative statement about CXW -- which I used to underscore of my point that you can't become a significantly better fighter without fighting (and CXW hasn't fought) -- as your tagline. I wonder why? To say something? About yourself? About me? Why don't you use this one instead: Randy Couture would kick my @ss. He's a fighter. Trains to fight by fighting. Has fought highly skilled people (and has even lost). But he has *demonstrated* world-class fighting skill. I wonder why anyone would think Couture could fight and CXW can't?

Regards,

Terence

[YongChun]

**Everytime I hear the term "principle-based system" it makes my @ss twitch -- it's just another often repeated myth, especially one theoreticians love. The term is meaningless. Sure WCK has principles, so does many other fighting methods.

RVR: I guess you don’t understand the concept then. Some systems are techniques based like Kenpo, one technique for every kind of attack. That’s your kind of system I guess. Wing Chun is just some good ideas from the Southern Chinese fighting arts plus a minimal tool set to implement these ideas. That’s it. Wing Chun is very simple. The ideas are encoded in the forms. The forms are not application choreographies. They are just roadmaps to fighting for the teacher to explain to students by means of training procedures and then fighting. Most fighting methods have principles. The principles from Wing Chun come from other fighting systems. Where do you think they come from?

**There is nothing wrong with articles, they have their place. But discussions of "use X to defeat Y" aren't useful. See below.

RVR: Funny that the Gracies, your heroes, spend so much time talking about how this and that technique can be used to counter this or that other technique.

**I said you don't begin with "theory"; you do begin with the tools as I said before. See below.

RVR: You might not begin with theory but other people do. If you want to develop an atomic bomb you don’t start with firecrackers. You start with a theory for how that might work. To fight the Thais you can start with a theory that conditioning and learning their trade would be the roadmap to defeating them. You don’t have to get your limbs broken first and then say : “oh, maybe I need some ideas first.” Wing Chun starts with a theory. The theory is one of economy of action implemented by use of the centerline theory. The whole system can develop from there. It doesn’t help to start with 10,000 martial arts tools and then wonder what to trim away. The overall strategy determines the tools.

**You keep mocking my postition with "real fighters don't do this or that" or "you're a wimp" and so forth. That sort of thing just displays intellectual bankruptcy -- it's a rather common form of a fallacious argument and when you see it you know that it is the "last resort" of someone that can't marshall a sound, rational argument. In other words, it is the cry of someone acknowledging defeat but feeling the need to say something.

RVR: Terence I never said you’re a wimp. I don’t believe you are that. Your obviously very tough. Your posts actually indicate intellectual bankruptcy because your posts say only that real fighters fight. No matter what the subject matter of the thread might be. That’s it. Fighters fight. Brilliant. There isn’t one useful suggestion., no experiences posted, no video clips no evidence that what you do is better than what anyone else does. Your keyboard has been wired to just punch out: “fighters fights and most Wing Chun people are dry land swimmers.” You thought those were very catchy lines right? Ok, you did mention that you might try a punch against a low roundhouse kick so I give you credit for that.

**First you get a tool, develop the tool, then put it into fighting. In trying to use that tool in fighting (and become more successful in application), one will find the principles.

RVR: I have always said that as well. MY way is to explain to new people the idea of Wing Chun. Then they can take it or leave it at that point. Then we develop the tools. Then we apply it in fighting. In your approach you just leave off step 1 to explain to students what it is they will be learning. I like to know the concept before I dive in.

**What you fail to see is that the very question, or rather the need to ask that question, indicates a failure in >how< they are training in the first place -- in their approach. See below.

RVR: I believe the scientific method is to ask questions. There are no stupid questions. You don’t have to be afraid to ask questions because some bully will laugh at you. Real people try things, have problems and then they ask questions from those who have succeeded to solve similar problems AND who are helpful. Most people on this thread are in the helpful category and not in the fools category as you suggest.

** This is why I say that you don't learn to fight from the forms, you "learn" the forms (the ideas behind them) from fighting.

RVR: This is a chicken and egg thing. What came first, fighting or the form? I haven’t seen any brawler come up with a form yet. The Wing Chun form is a theoretical exposition about fighting which must be translated by the teacher into fighting application, drills and ideas for the student. It’s just a textbook. Some people like textbooks and can learn that way and other people hate books and must learn from practical experience. The book readers also get practical experience but they like to read the theory first. Some people try to cure a disease by eating all kinds of drugs. Some people try to understand the causes first to come up with a possible treatment based on a theory.

** You can't look at it from the perspective of "how do I deal with a Thai kick" because there are too many variables to give a good answer. For example, …

RVR: This section of yours is good because you actually say something. However that’s not at odds with what anyone else has said on this thread. Various people have given their ideas to try. These can be starting points for the students to try and then he will discover through drilling and through fighting when and where those ideas will work or won’t work. When you go to any seminar they show you stuff. Then you go home with some new tools and ideas and try them out. It saves wasting a lot of time re-inventing the wheel. It’s smarter not to re-invent the wheel each time and to learn from what other experienced fighters have discovered. Sure I could come with the whole Gracie system myself from my wrestling and Wing Chun background but it’s a lot smarter to listen to those guys first, then try it out to develop my own ideas according to my strengths and weaknesses.

[t_niehoff]

**Fighting methods begin with fighting and evolve based on experience. The whole technique-based/concept-based notion is nonsense IMO, like the internal/external notion. Labels like these don't explain what is really going on.

RVR: Funny that the Gracies, your heroes, spend so much time talking about how this and that technique can be used to counter this or that other technique.

**You need to understand the context.

RVR: You might not begin with theory but other people do. If you want to develop an atomic bomb you don’t start with firecrackers. You start with a theory for how that might work. To fight the Thais you can start with a theory that conditioning and learning their trade would be the roadmap to defeating them. You don’t have to get your limbs broken first and then say : “oh, maybe I need some ideas first.” Wing Chun starts with a theory. The theory is one of economy of action implemented by use of the centerline theory. The whole system can develop from there. It doesn’t help to start with 10,000 martial arts tools and then wonder what to trim away. The overall strategy determines the tools.

**You are correct that the strategy determines the tools (as we use them to implement the strategy). The strategy isn't a concept -- it is *approach* (the BJJ strategy of taking the opponent to the ground, getting superior position, and then going for submission is approach). Having the strategic approach, we then begin to try to implement it with our tools (various tools to take him to the ground, pass the guard, pin, then submit). The concepts come in later. See below for further elaboration.

**You keep mocking my postition with "real fighters don't do this or that" or "you're a wimp" and so forth. That sort of thing just displays intellectual bankruptcy -- it's a rather common form of a fallacious argument and when you see it you know that it is the "last resort" of someone that can't marshall a sound, rational argument. In other words, it is the cry of someone acknowledging defeat but feeling the need to say something.

RVR: Terence I never said you’re a wimp. I don’t believe you are that. Your obviously very tough. Your posts actually indicate intellectual bankruptcy because your posts say only that real fighters fight. No matter what the subject matter of the thread might be. That’s it. Fighters fight. Brilliant. There isn’t one useful suggestion., no experiences posted, no video clips no evidence that what you do is better than what anyone else does. Your keyboard has been wired to just punch out: “fighters fights and most Wing Chun people are dry land swimmers.” You thought those were very catchy lines right? Ok, you did mention that you might try a punch against a low roundhouse kick so I give you credit for that.

**Please reread my comment. Your remarks suggested that I thought everyone else was a wimp if they didn't fight. That's not the case, and you know that but want to redicule my position. There is only one good way to know anything -- from evidence, from results. It doesn't matter if I fight better than anyone else -- my point isn't based on personal authority ("believe me because I'm good" -- that's a recipe for disaster). Rather, I'm saying anyone can and should look critically at their own "progress", their own "results", for themselves and see if their training methods are working, that is producing good results. Not results in drills or forms but results in what we are training to do: fight. Obviously one can't determine results, and the progress of those results, absent fighting. So if one trains 5 years without ever fighitng (to learn the "whole system" first, for example), they will be punching for 5 years without ever getting any feedback on their results -- so they won't be able to make any changes to their punching to get better results for 5 years.

**Moreover, if we look at the evidence of what sort of training produces good fighters, the evidence overwhelmingly shows us again and again that those folks who have proven that their training has significantly increased their fighting skills (regardless of their method) do not follow the sort of training model that most WCK people do -- instead it's the sort I've outlined in my previous posts. Now you can pronoounce that there are lots of ways to increase fighting skill (the many roads to Rome position), and point to "stories" or to people that don't fight that you infer have fighting skill from their drill or demo performances, but I don't see anyone that has demonstrated significantly increased fighting skills using one of these "other ways" (none of them have gotten to Rome).

RVR: I have always said that as well. MY way is to explain to new people the idea of Wing Chun. Then they can take it or leave it at that point. Then we develop the tools. Then we apply it in fighting. In your approach you just leave off step 1 to explain to students what it is they will be learning. I like to know the concept before I dive in.

**I, too, begin with approach, the method of WCK. I don't call that a concept, rather it is a direction or a roadmap. A concept is some notion that helps us use the tools to their fullest. Lien siu die da is a concept. It is not the method or approach of WCK. However, it helps us use the tools to their fullest (which helps us implement the method). That concept, for example, is best understood from application; if you simply try and use the punch -- just the punch -- in fighting, you'll find lien siu die da yourself as it is a natural consequence of using the tool in application, no one will need to point it out to you. This is IME what a good instructor does: he leads or guides the student through the self-discovery of these things.

RVR: I believe the scientific method is to ask questions. There are no stupid questions. You don’t have to be afraid to ask questions because some bully will laugh at you. Real people try things, have problems and then they ask questions from those who have succeeded to solve similar problems AND who are helpful. Most people on this thread are in the helpful category and not in the fools category as you suggest.

**I'm not suggesting anyone is a fool, just that they are approaching the "problem" from the wrong direction.

** This is why I say that you don't learn to fight from the forms, you "learn" the forms (the ideas behind them) from fighting.

RVR: This is a chicken and egg thing. What came first, fighting or the form?

**That's like asking which came first, printing or reading? They go together; you can't have one without the other.

I haven’t seen any brawler come up with a form yet.

**Any motion/action has "form." What you refer to is "form" that what you think their "form" should *look* like. "Form" is actually a poor word choice IMO as it implies something static or fixed. What is the "form" of someone throwing a ball or doing any action? You gauge or judge it based on performance or function. A good WCK punch produces certain results -- if it "looks" good but doesn't produce those results, it sucks. And it can't produce those results absent "form" as the "form" is a product of that result/function.

The Wing Chun form is a theoretical exposition about fighting which must be translated by the teacher into fighting application, drills and ideas for the student. It’s just a textbook. Some people like textbooks and can learn that way and other people hate books and must learn from practical experience. The book readers also get practical experience but they like to read the theory first. Some people try to cure a disease by eating all kinds of drugs. Some people try to understand the causes first to come up with a possible treatment based on a theory.

**The textbook analogy is fine. And it's the same for any martial art, they all have "techniques" or "forms" too. The issue is how does someone take that tool and make it work for themselves? And BTW, good instructors in any subject aren't bound by the textbook, and the textbook is merely a tool that serves us in developing skill and understanding of the subject matter (the fighting method in this case). A textbook on swimming isn't the same as swimming.

** You can't look at it from the perspective of "how do I deal with a Thai kick" because there are too many variables to give a good answer. For example, …

RVR: This section of yours is good because you actually say something. However that’s not at odds with what anyone else has said on this thread. Various people have given their ideas to try. These can be starting points for the students to try and then he will discover through drilling and through fighting when and where those ideas will work or won’t work. When you go to any seminar they show you stuff. Then you go home with some new tools and ideas and try them out. It saves wasting a lot of time re-inventing the wheel. It’s smarter not to re-invent the wheel each time and to learn from what other experienced fighters have discovered.

**Of course that begs the question of are these "suggestions" made by "experienced fighters" (and if not, should they be listened to?). And if their suggestions are so good, let's see them use them against good thai fighters (or is it the case of "theoretically this should work"?). But I think you're missing the brunt of my point, which is that the answers to these "what-if" questions will be answered from the course of training if one is training "properly"; if one is not training properly, which explains why these questions arise if the first place, no answer will be of much use -- they can go back and put it into a poor training model but they still won't "get it."

Regards,

Terence

[YongChun]

**Of course that begs the question of are these "suggestions" made by "experienced fighters" (and if not, should they be listened to?). And if their suggestions are so good, let's see them use them against good Thai fighters (or is it the case of "theoretically this should work"?). But I think you're missing the brunt of my point, which is that the answers to these "what-if" questions will be answered from the course of training if one is training "properly"; if one is not training properly, which explains why these questions arise if the first place, no answer will be of much use -- they can go back and put it into a poor training model but they still won't "get it."

Regards,

Terence

Hi Terence,

RVR:
Your post wasn't too bad. I think the problem with your posts is not your ideas but just that you appear to be very condescending and try to use bully tactics, which don't work over the net. With an impolite tone, no one will listen to you and people will argue just for the sake of argument even if you might be right. You also never show any results from your camp as others like Ernie and Phil have. They expose themselves for all to see. Of course against the real Thais, who’s willing to risk that? None of the Wing Chun teachers are willing to do that because they have everything to lose and nothing much to gain. Most are hobbyists and not professional fighters. In the case of Yip Man, he had to teach to earn some money otherwise Wing Chun may have died.

You talk pretty tough and say everyone should see if their stuff works against the Thais and that's great. I also want to see if your approach or anyone else's approach works against the Thais. I would like to see whose approach works best against the Thais, the traditional approach of William Cheung, the non-traditional approach of Wong Shun Leung and Leung Ting or the non Yip Man approach of Robert Chu. Is there anyone in your whole lineage that can give them a run for their money?

Maybe your approach is better but using your criteria of fighting against the Thais, it may also be not good enough. Phil has posted some video clips of handling a roundhouse kick. It's a William Cheung type of approach that people can try. I have no idea if that really works against the Thais. Probably it will work against non-Thais or against the people at your club. It looks reasonable.

Phil presented a visual theory. Now put that against a kicker who kicks at speed N meters per second and slowly increase the speed and at some point that method might break down. Is there a better method that wouldn't fail as soon? Then start the kick of at force N pounds per square inch. Then slowly increase the force. At some point in time, that method may fail as well. Perhaps someone can argue that his method will always work. Will the Kwun sau against a high roundhouse work? From my experience against average kickers it seems to work fine. I saw Chung Kwok Chow use that against a good Korean kicker in a demo. I didn’t see him apply it in a freestyle sparring match. Does it work against the Thai's in a lab situation, not even in a fight, who knows? Do you? If you did then that would be great to report.

Phil said he applied it against good kickers so that inspires one to try the idea. After that it put it into the fighting mix. As you say fighting is different because there are so many variables. You may never be in the position to apply that particular technique and have to apply on of the other 20 ideas you have as part of your tool set. Also the kicker may not be in a position to deliver the kick because he is too far or too close or too off-balance. This gives another idea to play with the distance and the timing no matter what the contact shape.

Overall in a fight I have heard of Wing Chun people on the rare occasion being able to handle a Thai boxer. I have never seen this and maybe it was never against anyone good and never on a repeatable basis. Various Wing Chun people might be able to beat a lot of average boxers but never the top contenders. Maybe we can beat a lot of BJJ artists but not the top guys. What is the fine line where that matters or doesn't matter?

You might train hard with your own club members but that might be soft in comparison to some members from some other club. I think people tend to train as hard as they can, stopping just short of injury. We do that. For us we go as fast as we can control, the same as when you drive a car. Then we try to work on trying to control ourselves at higher and higher levels of speed and strength. Slowly we build up our repertoire while doing this. Sometimes the whole experiment comes to a halt when certain students quit. So then you start over again and can't really continue from where you left off.

Sometimes fighters from some kind of other school might send us back to the drawing board and that fighter might come from Wing Chun, from boxing, from BJJ or from classical arts like Preying Mantis, Tai Chi or Hung style. If you never meet a certain type of fighter then you may never become aware of a weakness in your game plan. That kind of thing happens in Chess all the time. An opening might be considered sound for decades and then someone refutes it. Then again maybe a deeper analyst can again make it work against the counter tactics.

Theory and practice go hand in hand. You can figure out a lot of things from theory too. When Wong Shun Leung visited us one year we had lot's of debate with him. He didn't mind; he loved it. At one point he said "where did you learn that, who told you that, was it Wang Kiu?" We said no we just thought it up. The brain can do marvelous things.

On the theory approach, my wrestling friend in high school was also the provincial shot-put champion. That was also my event. With the 12 pound shot-put he threw 46 feet and I could only throw 42 no matter what I did. So then I went over and over again in my mind what he was doing. I got out a piece of paper and analyzed the whole physics of it and came up with an idea. So then I went out into the field with my shot-put and within a couple of throws, using my new body mechanics model, I managed to throw 48 feet. I invited my friend over and I out threw him. A few weeks later was the actual city school meet against all schools. We both entered the event. But he again was the champion because he always excelled under pressure. I fell short. He set a new record of about 49 feet. I threw about 46 feet. At home in relaxed mode I could throw 48.

I think the same happens in a lot of Olympic events. Everyone looks like they are unbeatable. Then someone goes back to the drawing board with a theory of how to improve. Often it isn't training harder because all the athletes already train as hard as they can train. Instead it's a new idea, a new angle, maybe a new training method.

I like to figure out the theory and then try it out. For me I was attracted to the Wing Chun theory and effectiveness when I was playing their game. Other arts never seemed to have any theory or at least never taught a theory. Fighting was by trial and error. Eventually you also came up with methods that worked. On my path, I thought the Wing Chun training program suddenly feel short when it got to the Thai kickboxing matches, the MMA matches, against 7th degree black belt kickers like Huang Jiang Lee.

The Chinese realized this. Maybe their programs were OK but the government suppressed realistic combat. But with heavy defeats by the Thais there was a loss of face. The SanDa effort seems to have been started up as a quick fix to the problem. Thousands of years of stuff got dumped into the garbage apparently and now everything has to be rethought. What I see for the most part is a drift towards the sporting, ring art side of the martial arts. If that were applied to Aikido then their 3,000 techniques would be have to be thrown away. I suspect a lot of Tai Chi, Ba Gua and things from any other classical art would also hit the wayside. I think it would be a pity to have that happen. To me it would be like ending up with only popular piano players who no matter how good are just not in the class of people like Mozart.

[old jong]

We should change this question for "How do we stop the "tefal" frying pan?...Because my wife once hittted me with one of these things (where the back looses it's name)and it hurted as hell!...

[Edmund]

If his foot is aimed at your thigh and you want your elbow to hit it,
you must have arms like an orangutan!

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

In the example I gave wherein it ends in a leg-catch...I would be going for it if he's kicking with his right leg as an attack against the back of my left thigh or knee area...and the hammerfist is tight near my body...with a very slight step back and to my right with my right foot...immediately preceding lifting my left leg.

..
..
..
The elbow of the hammerfist is down and in close to my body (often I've found that while my hammer "fist" hit's just below his knee by his upper shin area - my elbow is simultaneously hitting his ankle/foot area.

[Edmund]

Originally posted by YongChun
[BThe Chinese realized this. Maybe their programs were OK but the government suppressed realistic combat. But with heavy defeats by the Thais there was a loss of face. The SanDa effort seems to have been started up as a quick fix to the problem. Thousands of years of stuff got dumped into the garbage apparently and now everything has to be rethought. What I see for the most part is a drift towards the sporting, ring art side of the martial arts. If that were applied to Aikido then their 3,000 techniques would be have to be thrown away. I suspect a lot of Tai Chi, Ba Gua and things from any other classical art would also hit the wayside. I think it would be a pity to have that happen. To me it would be like ending up with only popular piano players who no matter how good are just not in the class of people like Mozart. [/B]

Who did Mozart ever beat in a genuine piano fight?

Seriously though, classical arts such as Aikido, Taiji, Bagua are doing pretty good without doing any realistic combat. I wouldn't worry too much about them disappearing.

[SAAMAG]

I think this thread is getting to be more of an ego trip for a couple of guys (names withheld for obvious reasons) who feel that they must prove themselves to the internet audience.

All I was saying...was that if you don't like what you read, why read it? It seems that some people bad mouth threads like this, but thrive to come in here every day and say something about it. "Brilliant. Just Brilliant." I think that about sums it up.

[Mr Punch]

Cheers Victor, sounds reasonable. You'd have to be fast to catch the kick tho. I prefer using your rising leg to unbalance him, followed by whatever strike combo you're using from the bounce off his leg, as he goes backwards. If with your step back, you've dropped into a strong stance you can raise your leg under his and send him on his way, using your leg raise to follow through into a stamping kick as you land.

I've used this against good kickers but no Thai guys as yet, as far as I remember.

What about a low one tho as per the original question?

Again, I like a stop kick, and the higher the kick, the closer I want my bridge, so the more likely I am to turn into a tan gerk.

[canglong]

YongChun,
Do you defend against the kick or do you defend the gate?