Where is the WCK?

[t_niehoff]

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight. When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

I guess you're not a fan of dirty (clinch) boxing.

I do agree that you can generally strike with more power when not controlling (when standing). However, there is a trade-off: by not controlling, you are not as safe. And, as I see it, the WCK method (fighting strategy) puts safety first (prevent his offense) -- something I don't see, btw, in most WCK "application demos" (which typically assumes your opponent will just let you hit him and not do anything in return).

Whether you seek out the clinch or find yourself there, you need a strategy and skill set for dealing with it. Control, and the fight for it, is a HUGE part of the clinch. In the clinch range, if you don't have control, your opponenent will. IME in the clinch, you can really only do three things: fight out of it (back to free-movement), control and strike, or control and take your opponent down. WCK provides a base method for doing all this. It certainly isn't exhaustive (neither is MT or greco or judo), but does provide a framework that can be useful in itself or used as a base to build from (which is what YKS did by incorporating some of Fung Sui Ching's weng chun into his method).

And I agree with your assessment about the ground, and I think GNP is a natural extension of a clinch-and-pound strategy.

[t_niehoff]

Wow...this thread is on fire. I'd agree with Ed moreso. It's close call really. If you look even remotely close, he sees the punch coming well before execution, starts the slapping motion to redirect the punch and right as his pak touches the arm, his punch starts to fire. The redirection continues and the punch connects. The punch and slap don't have to make contact at the exact same time to be considered pak-da--just that the motions work together at the same time to achieve the end result of hitting without getting hit.

Remember that while the training will have the hit and slap occur ideally at the same time, rarely does it happen that way because people never perform as ideally as they do in training against people who aren't "truly" trying to hit you. Such is the case here.

I don't wanna know how one could misinterprete an open hand slap with an intercepting punch.

It's not a close call. In boxing they call what Machida did batting away punches-- you bat away his punch THEN fire one back (a 1-2 timing). Look at Machida's rotation (his shoulders), that tells you the timing.

[t_niehoff]

Don't believe me? Go outside and try it.

I don't need to try it -- I did those experiments my first year in collge as a physics major. All objects, neglecting for the moment air resistance, fall at the same rate.

With objects like rocks, air resistance won't be significant.

I already provided proof. Turn your radio on, maybe there's Chinese station in your area.

No, you didn't supply proof -- you supplied an assertion. And then you refused to provide any evidence of your assertion.

Then by your reasoning, all techniques are the same... just shapes. The foundational support behind the techniques don't matter.

Not much power behind your punch? This may be why.

I am not talking about "shapes" -- I am talking about actions, movement. Techniques are actions/movements to achieve a desired objective. The foundational support you talk about is an aspect of the technique, not a thing in itself (and can't be separated from the technique).

Why the barb about me lacking power? Do boxers lack power too? You don't ehar them talking about all your segmented, theoretical aspects.

Ever thought about the importance of controlling your own COG while striking? Might want to give it some consideration.

You can only learn to do that by and trhough punching. It's like trying to learn to control you COG in bike riding by not riding the bike -- you are only fooling yoruself. You learn balance in bike riding by and through riding. Similarly, you learn to "control your COG" (more verbal nonsense, btw) in punching by punching.

Everything is holistic. Proper techniques are extensions of proper foundational body mechanics. Unless you're prone to believing in safe top heavy building.

If everything is holistic, then you can't learn or develop them segmented.

And this is why it doesn't work for you. All the techniques in WC should cover space. Punch or block, they should cover earth, human, or heaven gates.

WCK works just fine for me, thank you. The WCK movement/techniques are actions, they are doing something to your opponent -- not "covering space". If I pull you, for example, I am not "covering space", if I strike you, I am not "covering space." The gate theory is more nonsense.

Obviously you rely heavily on assumptions to prove your arguments. I just didn't want to use someone's words out of context.

No assumption. Why is it you can't simply say that you disagree with what "Sifu" Mark said?

So you put form over function. That is clear.

I said, 'There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.' How is that putting form over function?

Look, would a boxing coach say "your cross is being expressed with no function only form"? Who talks like that?

The tools are simply shapes. The body mechanics and structure beneath these tools is where the jewels of WC lay.

You seem to be thinking in terms of WCK being a shape + body mechanics + facing + etc. There are no "shapes". The shapes you see are snapsots frozen in time (and used to help beginners learn the actions). There are only ACTIONS. And the actions are used to achieved desired objectives (which make them techniques) -- or, to put it another way, there aren't shapes but ways of performing specific tasks. Tan sao, for example, is a way of performing a specific task. There is no "universal" WCK body mechanics but rather mechanics appropriate for whatever task you are performing. The mechanics will change with the task.

I'm not talking about earning belts. You are. I was merely expressing some of the similarities that transfer from one art to another. Similarities based on proof of concept.

Similarities in concept mean nothing since concepts are only ideas (and not skills). The point is that skill in WCK doesn't help you one lick in developing skill in BJJ -- if that were the case, then we would expect WCK people to progress faster (earn belts in BJJ faster) than others. That is not the case. So the evidence shows that any "similarity in concept" has no impact in our development or transfer of skill.

Concepts are, for the most part, nonsense. Our skill doesn't come from concepts, it comes from practicing (performing) that skill.

[Knifefighter]

If you don't know how to do it, it is.. Folks do it instinctively, many arts train it.

They might train it, but they can't apply it.

WCK mechanics are designed to offer power and control.. The structure and mechanics used--facing--using both hands/arms as one, etc, allow for this...

The mechanics of the striking is quite powerful and some strikes can generate more power than others.. The linear nature of the art, the basic striking in the system puts the entire body behind each shot.. I can generate more power than my fists can withstand by doing so... which is why we also have open hands, more than one kind of strike, elbows, kicks, etc..

A good understanding of the mechanics and tools would help....

It might be designed to do that, but the reality plays out differently.

Of course, as always, you can prove me wrong by pointing me to some clips of WC people doing what you say they can do in this realm.

[Knifefighter]

I guess you're not a fan of dirty (clinch) boxing.

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

[Frost]

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

Are you arguing that hitting of tie ups and controls like underhooks, over hooks negate power due to the fact you can’t generate enough force because you are holding onto someone? where as with the Thai Plum you are controlling them but can still generate force because you can drop your hips back when kneeing etc? Am I right in thinking that’s what you are talking about?

[m1k3]

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

Jens 'Little Evil' Pulver

[Knifefighter]

Are you arguing that hitting of tie ups and controls like underhooks, over hooks negate power due to the fact you can’t generate enough force because you are holding onto someone? where as with the Thai Plum you are controlling them but can still generate force because you can drop your hips back when kneeing etc? Am I right in thinking that’s what you are talking about?

That would be one of the principles I am referring to.

Then there's the whole idea of what many WC think of as control & hitting, such as the crossed up arms followed by the silly little backfist you see in almost all chi sao demos.

[Frost]

Jens 'Little Evil' Pulver

If I am right with what I think Dale is referring to then he might be spot on, yes people can do the control and hit thing, but how much power do they generate whilst doing it? How many fights have we seen guys caught up against the cage swapping controlling position and hitting each other not doing any real damage until someone gets the plumb and starts unloading knees? It’s more like an attrition move to wear the opponent down and a point scoring thing than anything else

[Frost]

That would be one of the principles I am referring to.

Then there's the whole idea of what many WC think of as control & hitting, such as the crossed up arms followed by the silly little backfist you see in almost all chi sao demos.

intersting i can see your line if thinking. My MMA coach when teaching the clinch for MMA keeps it very simple thai plum to hit off and body lock etc to throw takedown, the rest underhooks/overhooks are defenses grappling moves not positions to hit off. Not that you can;t hit off them but they are more controlling setting up the take down moves

[m1k3]

Actually I see dirty boxing or clinch fighting as more of a setup to a takedown rather than a war of attrition. It adds a whole new dimension to grip/hand fighting. I agree that the odds of getting a finishing punch are very low.

[Dragonzbane76]

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

seen randy couture do it many a times. Also Matt Hamil and a few others do it well.

[Frost]

Actually I see dirty boxing or clinch fighting as more of a setup to a takedown rather than a war of attrition. It adds a whole new dimension to grip/hand fighting. I agree that the odds of getting a finishing punch are very low.

not disagreeing with you i love the clinch and takedowns from there, but what you are talking about, ie dirty boxing to set up take downs is different from attached hitting to hurt your opponent, which is what knife seems to be saying is ineffective

[Knifefighter]

Jens 'Little Evil' Pulver

I think that you will generally see Pulver control and strike with power under two conditions... the plum tie with knees and a behind the neck tie-up control with one hand while striking with the other. Both of these would be valid scenarios for controlling and striking with power. Notice how, with each of these, the control is at the neck, rather than the arms.

[Knifefighter]

seen randy couture do it many a times. Also Matt Hamil and a few others do it well.

Can you point to a specific clip of what you are talking about?