Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: Seperating drills from practicallity

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NY, NJ, MA
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Knifefighter View Post
    Actually, that's more common among people who have only trained in their training facilities and have never truly the adrenaline dump of a real fight. Full contact competitions give you a close approximation of that dump, which means you will be less likely to forget about what you have trained.
    Excellent point about adrenaline dump in a real fight. I think that a lot of techniques in WC/VT/WT are valid and will work in such an adrenaline dump but the students never test them so it just plain ol' rage when they get into a fight.

    Then again i see a lot of crap out there that I think hasn't been tested at all, but looks pretty in chi sao

    You show me a system that can guarantee I won't get cut in a knife fight. How about one that even will give me a "high" percentage of not getting cut.
    Dont the dogbrothers have a saying "Die a little less" for a reason? Hey, Knifefighter, you know of anyone in the NYC/CT area you'd recommend that has a similar mindset?

    -taojkd

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    233
    To have a knife system where you won't get cut is like having an open handed system where you will never get hit......very doubtful to ever happen.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    601
    I think that a lot of techniques in WC/VT/WT are valid and will work in such an adrenaline dump but the students never test them so it just plain ol' rage when they get into a fight.
    Its the concepts that once you internalize them, will come out. Techniques and drills are there only to help your body to understand the concepts. Your lop sao, pak sao, gum sao, bong sao, pak sao, huen sao etc. - Those are actually all natural reactions that the body has already - Parry, Grab, Pin, Cover, etc. The WC concepts build on those natural reactions by helping you understand your own body mechanics, so you can more efficiently utilize them.

    Or at least they should. IMHO if the expression becomes rigid and stiff, instead of natural and free flowing, you're doing yourself a disservice.

    It should become each practitioners expression of the concepts, not the rehearsal of the techniques.

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianK View Post
    Its the concepts that once you internalize them, will come out.
    LOL @ "internalizing" concepts. Unless you are going full force against people you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you, the only thing you are going to internalize are those done in the same safe conditions of your studio.


    Techniques and drills are there only to help your body to understand the concepts. Your lop sao, pak sao, gum sao, bong sao, pak sao, huen sao etc. - Those are actually all natural reactions that the body has already - Parry, Grab, Pin, Cover, etc. The WC concepts build on those natural reactions by helping you understand your own body mechanics, so you can more efficiently utilize them.
    If anything, WC teaches the opposite of what are natural fighting reactions. The Chinese styles with the wide, looping techniques are much more instinctive.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    601
    LOL @ "internalizing" concepts. Unless you are going full force against people you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you, the only thing you are going to internalize are those done in the same safe conditions of your studio.
    Yes and No. There's knowledge to be gained by different stages of resistance. Eventually you should be going full force. And sparring against people far outside of your studio.


    If anything, WC teaches the opposite of what are natural fighting reactions. The Chinese styles with the wide, looping techniques are much more instinctive.
    I disagree. Grabbing(lop), parrying(pak), covering up(bong), pinning(gum), are all very natural reactions for someone trained or untrained.

    They aren't as natural as punching someone, but they are very natural things that people have been doing in fighting since the beginning.

    Of course, the standard template which wing chun shows these techniques, isn't very natural. But the ideas they demonstrate allow you to apply these conceptually to those original instincts.

    Chances are if it looks like the original template, its not going to be effective, because as it is, its a rigid and stiff expression, IMHO.
    Last edited by AdrianK; 07-04-2009 at 01:04 PM.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianK View Post
    Yes and No. There's knowledge to be gained by different stages of resistance. Eventually you should be going full force. And sparring against people far outside of your studio.
    Not sparring... going full out with the intention of hurting each other as much as possible. If you haven't done that consistently, you haven't really trained for self-defense.
    Last edited by Knifefighter; 07-04-2009 at 01:12 PM.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    601
    Isn't that what sparring is?

    Well, or what it should be.

    I think I understand what you're saying. The sparring in Kung fu schools in general is less like sparring and more like playing tag.

    Hence why I love boxing gyms

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianK View Post
    Hence why I love boxing gyms
    Again, sparring at a boxing gym is not self-defense training. Attend the next Dog Brothers gathering and you'll see what I am talking about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCO9ZsYGDA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Itd...eature=related
    Last edited by Knifefighter; 07-04-2009 at 02:16 PM.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    601
    I never said it was self-defense training. Merely citing the fact that any good boxing gym has full-force sparring, an idea that should be utilized in martial arts.

    Having a timer of 2 to 3 minutes is good as well so that people don't try and pace themselves, keeping the action going instead of messing around.
    Last edited by AdrianK; 07-04-2009 at 02:30 PM.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianK View Post
    Its the concepts that once you internalize them, will come out. Techniques and drills are there only to help your body to understand the concepts. Your lop sao, pak sao, gum sao, bong sao, pak sao, huen sao etc. - Those are actually all natural reactions that the body has already - Parry, Grab, Pin, Cover, etc. The WC concepts build on those natural reactions by helping you understand your own body mechanics, so you can more efficiently utilize them.
    Natural reactions without natural power and without natural expression...! And there's a big one you missed off that list: Dodge. You could have Ride as a separate one too. Why is that?
    Or at least they should. IMHO if the expression becomes rigid and stiff, instead of natural and free flowing, you're doing yourself a disservice.
    The style strongly lends itself to rigidity and stiffness. Why? Partly because people don't practice full power punches against their wall-bag, against their dummy, against their heavy bags (if they're even radical enough to use them! ), against each other. So when they actually try to they become ridiculously unnatural and fall back on rigid conformity to the 'form' (in western and eastern senses of the word).

    It should become each practitioners expression of the concepts, not the rehearsal of the techniques.
    No, it should be fighting. I'm not interested in expressing concepts, I'm interested in putting someone down who's trying to put me down. If wing chun helps me to do that, great.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knifefighter View Post
    LOL @ "internalizing" concepts. Unless you are going full force against people you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you, the only thing you are going to internalize are those done in the same safe conditions of your studio.
    That's exactly what I was going to post as soon as I saw this post. Rather more prosaically: internalising **** is bad, mmkay!

    If anything, WC teaches the opposite of what are natural fighting reactions. The Chinese styles with the wide, looping techniques are much more instinctive.
    There's good and bad: the straight-out reaction is also there as a push away... the supposed penetration of a wing chun punch shouldn't be hard to modify from that reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianK View Post
    I disagree. Grabbing(lop), parrying(pak), covering up(bong), pinning(gum), are all very natural reactions for someone trained or untrained.
    Bong is a ****-poor cover up. Not saying it doesn't have a use, but it's extremely limited, and again, a very unnatural reaction. Watch someone flinch: yeah the arms come up but invariably with the hand palm in to the head and the elbow down. As far as grabbing goes, grabbing someone's arm to pull it in to you? The grab everything response is stronger: and that's pure grappling or at least clinch. Which is something your wing chun should have... in fact that should be a mainstay for a 'system' that works at wing chun's range.

    And again, your list misses dodge (and ride)... which:
    are very natural things that people have been doing in fighting since the beginning.
    its safe to say that I train some martial arts. Im not that good really, but most people really suck, so I feel ok about that - Sunfist

    Sometime blog on training esp in Japan

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    601
    Natural reactions without natural power and without natural expression...!
    I don't understand what you mean. Without technique and template, or any understanding of the concepts, these natural reactions are a natural expression.

    With technique, template, concepts, these natural reactions should still be a natural expression, utilizing your abilities. If they are not, then you aren't utilizing the concepts, you're expressing static(dead), rehearsed motions.


    And there's a big one you missed off that list: Dodge.
    Whats your point? That dodge isn't in the curriculum? Or that I didn't include dodge? If its the former, I never said WC encompassed all of our natural reactions. I believe it is far from that. If it is the latter, I named a certain few concepts, not nearly all of them.

    Either way, I didn't miss anything.


    The style strongly lends itself to rigidity and stiffness. Why? Partly because people don't practice full power punches against their wall-bag, against their dummy, against their heavy bags (if they're even radical enough to use them! ), against each other. So when they actually try to they become ridiculously unnatural and fall back on rigid conformity to the 'form' (in western and eastern senses of the word).
    I believe almost all styles as they are taught lend themselves to rigidity and stiffness.

    It is because these styles aren't taught in the form of concepts, that they are a small but valid science, instead they are taught that with rehearsed motions - they are the ONLY valid "Science", and follow no scientific method or understanding.

    I fully agree that the state of WC, and Kung Fu, and most martial arts in general, is very poor.


    No, it should be fighting. I'm not interested in expressing concepts, I'm interested in putting someone down who's trying to put me down. If wing chun helps me to do that, great.
    What you don't seem to understand is that fighting, and expressing concepts, are the same thing.

    Expressing concepts is a more specific way of saying you are utilizing what you are taught and what you teach yourself, in a natural way. Utilizing your physical and mental abilities, as well as your emotions and will.

    Fighting is very expressive. In a fight where you are tested to your limits, you show exactly who you are as a person. There is no room for anything else.


    Bong is a ****-poor cover up. Not saying it doesn't have a use, but it's extremely limited, and again, a very unnatural reaction.
    Absolutely, conceptually its strengths lie beyond simply covering up. Though, its as natural a reaction as any, to lift your arms up to protect yourself. Its as natural as any to grab(lop), but the concepts behind grabbing are what empower it.


    Watch someone flinch: yeah the arms come up but invariably with the hand palm in to the head and the elbow down.
    The bong, like every technique, is variable. The elbow being down is similar in structure as the elbow being up, its just a variation. Still bong sao conceptually. Thats where we all get confused is that the rehearsed motion is static. Its not, its an idea which is infinitely variable. Thats where expression comes in, how you choose to utilize that variable idea at any given moment.

    Fighting isn't rehearsed, it is not an expression of a style, that we can use anything we're taught is great. The ideas need to be adaptable though, otherwise we're stuck trying to do all of these techniques we learn, trying to find the perfect situations to do them in, and everything in between that, we have no answer to.


    As far as grabbing goes, grabbing someone's arm to pull it in to you?
    Grabbing as a concept, again, encompasses every variable.


    The grab everything response is stronger: and that's pure grappling or at least clinch.
    Ya know, grab everything is just an idea. It has its place, but you can't always control both arms, and you can't always control just one arm. Both are valid. Grab everything is an expression of lop sao as well.


    Which is something your wing chun should have... in fact that should be a mainstay for a 'system' that works at wing chun's range.
    Absolutely. Me and "Violent Designs" here sometimes train together, and utilize grabbing everything, as you've said. We're frequently clinching and grappling in chi sao and sparring.


    All of these things are my interpretation of WC, though. I really, deeply know that this is far from the norm of how the style is taught.
    Last edited by AdrianK; 07-04-2009 at 03:41 PM.

  12. #57
    lop is from bil gee ...a way to turn your opponent on his/her axis like opening a farm gate on its hinge attached to a wall, you dont try to pull the gate off the hinges...size doesnt matter because of the leverage ...fight 50% of a person ability by fighting flanks, bil gee is showing how to TAKE a side if they arent truning before you as you attack them of they manage to stop your flow grab and turn then shove [po-pai] enought o keep them within your attack zone and keep attacking..

    The idea of lop is to gain a flank aggressively if the opponent hasnt nor will they allow a flank as you enter /engage them...followed by a sharp push to regain the flow of water , dont let them create a 'dam' to the flow. Try not to allow them to face squarely like your a hanging bag, move or grab and move them ...shift to sides avoid allowing equality of tools....

    Jut sao is the primary response to an arm interrupting your strike...because jut sao is what you do AFTER A STRIKE ATTEMPT is stooped/interupted [stooped ?I meant stopped] ], rather than leading by grabbing ....and JUT will stay on the strike line/centerline even if you miss the backwards/forwards 'jerk'..plus jut doesnt involve grabbing the arm and turning off line to a given RE-direction/flow of attacking action direction....
    iow if you miss with a lop as your primary grab left or right you open up your own entry line if the guy feints you.

    Ive been taught lop as a primary move before, I used it in a street fight and missed the guys arm making me wide open , luckily I could regain my self and managed to come
    out unscathed [good word unscathed ]

    Jut is in SLT not LOP, LOP in BG
    Last edited by k gledhill; 07-05-2009 at 08:24 AM.

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Knifefighter View Post
    Again, sparring at a boxing gym is not self-defense training. Attend the next Dog Brothers gathering and you'll see what I am talking about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCO9ZsYGDA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Itd...eature=related
    Hey thanks for the links - I hadn't seen the Gabe Suarez combo one - and the fusion - gun/knife/empty hand is one that is not often covered in any self defense material and yet is pretty vital.

  14. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by k gledhill View Post
    lop is from bil gee ...a way to turn your opponent on his/her axis like opening a farm gate on its hinge attached to a wall, you dont try to pull the gate off the hinges...size doesnt matter because of the leverage ...fight 50% of a person ability by fighting flanks, bil gee is showing how to TAKE a side if they arent truning before you as you attack them of they manage to stop your flow grab and turn then shove [po-pai] enought o keep them within your attack zone and keep attacking..
    Too bad it doesn't work that way against a halfway skilled opponent.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northridge, CA
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by k gledhill View Post
    lop is from bil gee ...a way to turn your opponent on his/her axis like opening a farm gate on its hinge attached to a wall, you dont try to pull the gate off the hinges...size doesnt matter because of the leverage ...fight 50% of a person ability by fighting flanks, bil gee is showing how to TAKE a side if they arent truning before you as you attack them of they manage to stop your flow grab and turn then shove [po-pai] enought o keep them within your attack zone and keep attacking..

    The idea of lop is to gain a flank aggressively if the opponent hasnt nor will they allow a flank as you enter /engage them...followed by a sharp push to regain the flow of water , dont let them create a 'dam' to the flow. Try not to allow them to face squarely like your a hanging bag, move or grab and move them ...shift to sides avoid allowing equality of tools....

    Jut sao is the primary response to an arm interrupting your strike...because jut sao is what you do AFTER A STRIKE ATTEMPT is stooped/interupted [stooped ?I meant stopped] ], rather than leading by grabbing ....and JUT will stay on the strike line/centerline even if you miss the backwards/forwards 'jerk'..plus jut doesnt involve grabbing the arm and turning off line to a given RE-direction/flow of attacking action direction....
    iow if you miss with a lop as your primary grab left or right you open up your own entry line if the guy feints you.

    Ive been taught lop as a primary move before, I used it in a street fight and missed the guys arm making me wide open , luckily I could regain my self and managed to come
    out unscathed [good word unscathed ]

    Jut is in SLT not LOP, LOP in BG
    The thing about Lop or Jut is the meaning of each word. Besides the fact that no one has ever had overall authority over the style, the understanding of each concept varies from teacher to teacher. There is plenty of in-fighting for this reason. Then we have Wing Chun outside of the Yip Man lineage, and there are even further deviations.

    Conceptually Lop Sao is a grab, nothing more specific than a grab, how you interpret that grows and changes based on who you train with, and how you train. On top of that, it is also a concept with several variables for which you can express your own understanding of this grab, and not just what your teacher tells you that you can.

    Ultimately in martial arts and fighting, you do what works. There is nothing gained from sticking to stylistic constraints.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •