Sticking Hands

[k gledhill]

Simple.... Terence has only been able to get to a level of functionality from his level of understanding, thats not very high/deep imo. But thats just my opinion

[Graham H]

Simple.... Terence has only been able to get to a level of functionality from his level of understanding, thats not very high/deep imo. But thats just my opinion

Mine also!!!!

GH

[t_niehoff]

Simple.... Terence has only been able to get to a level of functionality from his level of understanding, thats not very high/deep imo. But thats just my opinion

That you guys talk in terms of "understanding" only reveals what theoretical nonfighters you are. Functionality -- being able to use your WCK in fighting -- doesn't come from "understanding". Do you think what makes a boxer better is his "understanding", that what makes one wrestler better than another is superior "understanding", or that Tiger just lost his "understanding" of the game! LOL! Well, you guys probably do!

Skill doesn't come from "understanding". Skill only comes by doing the skill itself. And you guys aren't doing it but believe that you "understand."

Go to a good MMA gym and spar. You will be spanked by the white-belt level guys. THAT is your level of "understanding."

[t_niehoff]

It's realistic for those who have learned how to take what's in chi sao and apply it to fighting and competitive sparring.

And for those who can't do that - chi sao is forever either a worthless drill or something to somehow twist into their own little made-up fantasy of what wing chun is (ie.- it's part of the "wing chun is attached fighting" crap).

You can figure out who around here falls into what category.

Yes, you can.

Who is it that refuses to go to a good gym, whether boxing, grappling or MMA, to train! ROFLOL! Yet, he "teaches" boxing, grappling, etc. without having any training.

Tell us all, Victor, why won't you go to a good gym to train? Are you afraid that you will be spanked? Is your ego too fragile for that? Would it crush you to learn that you have very low-level skill?

[AdrianK]

Functionality -- being able to use your WCK in fighting -- doesn't come from "understanding". Do you think what makes a boxer better is his "understanding"

SRL, Tyson, Dempsey, and many of the greats in boxing have/had an incredibly high level of understanding of what they were doing. What makes a great fighter? I don't know, neither does anyone on this board. But take a look at Tyson, part of his training consisted of hours and hours of watching old fights, analyzing them, dissecting them. Everything is built and put into action by training, but without understanding of what you're doing, you can only progress so far.

Skills are built in the gym, but fighting isn't just a set of skills put into motion. Its also the intelligence to understand yourself and your opponent, and the ability to adapt to situations you've never been in before.

Boxing is probably the most prime example of this. Everybody practically does the same training. But the end result comes in a variety of ways, usually due to an intellectual understanding.

Ali vs Foreman is a fine example of this. Or JMM vs. Marquez I and II. Hell, just watch any high level counter puncher, like Floyd Mayweather Jr, and you'll see how devastating someone with a deep understanding of what they're doing, can be.

[CFT]

Adrian, there is a difference IMO. The individuals in your examples are also "playing the game", as Terence is fond of saying. Evaluation of oneself and of one's opponent is as old as (or even older than) Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

All Terence is asking is that people undertake an honest assessment of their own skill against the most readily available yardstick - your boxing gym, muay thai gym, mma gym. Keeping it all in house is about as credible as advocating proprietary security protocols.

[t_niehoff]

SRL, Tyson, Dempsey, and many of the greats in boxing have/had an incredibly high level of understanding of what they were doing. What makes a great fighter? I don't know, neither does anyone on this board.

What makes any great athlete? Talent, good training, etc.

But take a look at Tyson, part of his training consisted of hours and hours of watching old fights, analyzing them, dissecting them. Everything is built and put into action by training, but without understanding of what you're doing, you can only progress so far.

You have it backwards. Tyson is able to look at films -- the same ones you can watch btw -- and see things you don't see, see what is significant, etc. BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS THE SKILL. Before I began training in BJJ, I could watch MMA or BJJ fights but I didn't really see what was going on. And this is the key: OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ARE DOING DEPENDS ON OUR SKILL LEVEL. Understanding comes from skill, not the other way around.

Skills are built in the gym, but fighting isn't just a set of skills put into motion. Its also the intelligence to understand yourself and your opponent, and the ability to adapt to situations you've never been in before.

Yes, fighting is a psycho-physical activity, and you train both aspects in the gym. You develop the skill by practicing the skill.

Boxing is probably the most prime example of this. Everybody practically does the same training. But the end result comes in a variety of ways, usually due to an intellectual understanding.

No, it doesn't. Do you think what separates major league baseball players is "intellectual understanding"? What separates NBA players is "intellectual understanding"?

Boxing, and any other fighting art, is a game. And you get better at the game by playing the game.

Ali vs Foreman is a fine example of this. Or JMM vs. Marquez I and II. Hell, just watch any high level counter puncher, like Floyd Mayweather Jr, and you'll see how devastating someone with a deep understanding of what they're doing, can be.

That's not "understanding" that is skill. That "understanding" came from thousands of hours sparring in the gym.

Now, take someone who hasn't put in those same hours in the gym. What is their "understanding", what do they really "know"? Do you see how funny it is for people who don't box to talk about their "understanding" of the game?

[t_niehoff]

Adrian, there is a difference IMO. The individuals in your examples are also "playing the game", as Terence is fond of saying. Evaluation of oneself and of one's opponent is as old as (or even older than) Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

All Terence is asking is that people undertake an honest assessment of their own skill against the most readily available yardstick - your boxing gym, muay thai gym, mma gym. Keeping it all in house is about as credible as advocating proprietary security protocols.

Very well put.

[AdrianK]

What makes any great athlete? Talent, good training, etc.

Obviously. I was speaking on specifics.

You have it backwards. Tyson is able to look at films -- the same ones you can watch btw -- and see things you don't see, see what is significant, etc. BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS THE SKILL.

Its irrelevant whether he has the skill or not. I never said you gain ability from knowledge without training.

Before I began training in BJJ, I could watch MMA or BJJ fights but I didn't really see what was going on. And this is the key: OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ARE DOING DEPENDS ON OUR SKILL LEVEL. Understanding comes from skill, not the other way around.

Again, no s*. I'm not in disagreement with this. I thought I've been pretty clear in stating that what I'm advocating here is understanding what you're training on an intellectual level, in order to progress further. Not trying to gain skill from knowledge and not training. Never said anything of the sort.

Yes, fighting is a psycho-physical activity, and you train both aspects in the gym. You develop the skill by practicing the skill.

Yep, there can't be any skill acquired without training.

No, it doesn't. Do you think what separates major league baseball players is "intellectual understanding"? What separates NBA players is "intellectual understanding"?

All things being equal physically, strategy and an understanding of how the game works will be the deciding factor. In Pacquiao vs. Marquez I and II, you see physical dominance versus intellectual dominance. Marquez's brilliance lies in his ability to understand his opponent and make adjustments in the midst of everything. He makes these adjustments because he understands the game and what he's doing. Pacquiao trains just as much as Marquez, in the same manner in the gym, and yet doesn't understand the game as well, and thus while Marquez loses by physical dominance(knockdowns), in both of the fights he won the majority of rounds by sheer intellect.

Boxing, and any other fighting art, is a game. And you get better at the game by playing the game.

Obviously, take chess for instance. You can't get better if you don't play, but you can only get so good if you don't study it. What you're doing, what other people have done, etc. Ask any ranked chess player if they simply got to where they were by only playing a lot.

That's not "understanding" that is skill. That "understanding" came from thousands of hours sparring in the gym.

Knowledge can come from many places. It can be a stepping stone to understanding. If someone explains to me and shows me how to jab, when I go and spar with that knowledge, I gain the understanding of that. If someone tells me to cut off the ring and says nothing else, I have a vague idea of how to do that and figure it out for myself. Can I figure it out myself? Of course. But how much quicker will I understand it if they show me examples and tell me why I'm doing it in the first place?

Now, take someone who hasn't put in those same hours in the gym. What is their "understanding", what do they really "know"? Do you see how funny it is for people who don't box to talk about their "understanding" of the game?

Absolutely. At best you'd have second-hand knowledge not backed up by any real understanding. Thats not to say its wrong, its just shallow. Take Joe Calzaghe's dad for instance, he taught Joe(an undefeated world champ) how to box just from reading boxing books. Joe put in the work, and while his dad had only a shallow understanding of what he was teaching, Joe was able to apply it.

[t_niehoff]

Its irrelevant whether he has the skill or not. I never said you gain ability from knowledge without training.

It's more than that.

Again, no s*. I'm not in disagreement with this. I thought I've been pretty clear in stating that what I'm advocating here is understanding what you're training on an intellectual level, in order to progress further. Not trying to gain skill from knowledge and not training. Never said anything of the sort.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. If so, sorry. My point is that you learn some skill, then you practice that skill, and with practice your ability to perform that skill grows -- as does your "understanding". It's not like you understand first, then develop skill. Rather, you develop skill first, and that process -- of developing the skill -- is what develops our understanding.

All things being equal physically, strategy and an understanding of how the game works will be the deciding factor. In Pacquiao vs. Marquez I and II, you see physical dominance versus intellectual dominance. Marquez's brilliance lies in his ability to understand his opponent and make adjustments in the midst of everything. He makes these adjustments because he understands the game and what he's doing. Pacquiao trains just as much as Marquez, in the same manner in the gym, and yet doesn't understand the game as well, and thus while Marquez loses by physical dominance(knockdowns), in both of the fights he won the majority of rounds by sheer intellect.

I don't agree with your assessment.

Yes, strategy and tactics play a role, but much -- most -- of what we do takes place not on a conscious level (the level of understanding) because fighting is so fast. And so strategy and tactics need to be very simple.

Obviously, take chess for instance. You can't get better if you don't play, but you can only get so good if you don't study it. What you're doing, what other people have done, etc. Ask any ranked chess player if they simply got to where they were by only playing a lot.

I'm a chessmaster, and former state champion. And that's precisely how I did get better -- by playing lots and lots of games (against good players). Chess is an activity, and you only can get good by practicing the activity. And, I am not a master because I 'understand' the game better -- it is because I have a better memory (for openings), can calculate better, have more experience, etc.

Knowledge can come from many places. It can be a stepping stone to understanding. If someone explains to me and shows me how to jab, when I go and spar with that knowledge, I gain the understanding of that. If someone tells me to cut off the ring and says nothing else, I have a vague idea of how to do that and figure it out for myself. Can I figure it out myself? Of course. But how much quicker will I understand it if they show me examples and tell me why I'm doing it in the first place?

Of course we need to learn the game and the skills. That is a given. If you want to learn how to swim or ride a bike, someone can show you how to swim or ride, they can help you by pointing out significant aspects, etc. And it will make learning to swim or ride a bike easier -- provided the information is true (which in TMA circles isn't a given!). But my point is that swimming, riding a bike or fighting (regardless of your art) isn't based in knowledge or understanding, it is based in skill, in performance.

Absolutely. At best you'd have second-hand knowledge not backed up by any real understanding. Thats not to say its wrong, its just shallow. Take Joe Calzaghe's dad for instance, he taught Joe(an undefeated world champ) how to box just from reading boxing books. Joe put in the work, and while his dad had only a shallow understanding of what he was teaching, Joe was able to apply it.

Excellent point.

[YungChun]

Terrance,

I completely disagree with your view on "skill and understanding". Let me quote one of my instructor's.

"Skill will always beat pure strength. But, when skill is equal, strength is the deciding factor"
- Joe Lewis

I keep hearing you tell people to go to your local MMA or MT gym to fight. While I do think that there is merit in fighting people of different styles, the beginning "skills" you learn can be mastered right in your own school. I know you have lost faith in WC, that is obvious from your statements about the art. And honestly, it's a fair assessment on much of the crap Wing Chun in the US. But, I have met just as many crap BJJ and MT stylists. I say this from a postition of knowledge - as I hold a BB in Judo as well as the Joe Lewis System, in addition to Kenpo. I am here to tell you, the best stand up fighter I have ever met, is my instructor in WC.

Lastly, do you think fighting in a controlled manner such as MMA is the answer to everything? I am honestly asking and don't mean to attack you in anyway. But, if it is....I really feel sorry for you. Fighting on mats with rules is not a "fight". It's a sparring match. There is a huge difference.

You're totally off-base...........but I'll let T respond...

the best stand up fighter I have ever met, is my instructor in WC.

Must be lots of video of him fighting..... Got any?

[YungChun]

Hence, why drills and Chi Sao, once in that range can have such a dramatic impact.

Again, I agree with some of what you are saying. To be a fighter, you have to fight. Period. But, WC is a FIGHTING METHOD. Period. I believe the skills you learn through WC can be used applicably in fighting.

The point is that the "drills" are the basic training... What I was taught and what the message in play is--is that the curriculum is intended to serve very simply as an introduction to these skills, to the method.. Once you have completed these basics you improve by doing, by fighting....not by reviewing lesson 2, 3 and 5. etc.. over and over again, which is what many do.

That said I have no problem with working on things in drills later on but the point is that the activity itself is where most of the skill building is done..

[YungChun]

Doesn't it depend on what skill you are working on?

Does what depend on what skill?

The curriculum is the curriculum... Although this may seem to be Terence's invention it's not because this is exactly what I was taught and it makes sense..

The curriculum is a process--like high school.. Once you complete high school you go off to college... You never stay in high school for "deeper" learning.

The other issue is that some "high schools" are better than others and continuing the analogy, some "graduates" still have trouble reading and writing clearly even after graduating....

Are you learning the fundamentals to the WC way to fight. Yes.

Sure, that's the purpose of the curriculum.

No matter what any of us do, anytime we place rules or regulations concerning our fighting, we are not getting the "real" feel of fighting. My biggest argument against what I have seen on these pages revolves around that. Everyone says you have to "fight" to get better at fighting. Getting in a RING and fighting with MMA RULES is not fighting. It's sparring. Period.

This is a mental trap. You will have to do some searching to understand why..

The bottom line is that it's about an activity...a thing you do--fighting.. Doing the activity itself is how you get better at it... Good sparring--whatever the format--is the activity... This is the lesson of the sport model. It doesn't matter that a given sparring format is not "exactly the same as" your idealized view of some imaginary fight... No two fights are the same anyway.. The key is that you can only learn to fight by fighting.. In this case sparring is how you train fighting..

Now, you can look at different ways to do that.. What equipment is best for your needs, what sparring format, rules, etc.. But don't fool yourself into thinking that just because there ARE rules that somehow the activity is gone or diminished, because the skills, the activity is very much in play.... No 1%-2% differential changes that and tests in no rule matches shows that...

It's simple really, do it or don't do it but you won't get better by not doing it.

[Yoshiyahu]

True so true



those who do chi sau are better at chi sau than those who don't


Those who do push hands are better at doing toi shou than those who dont


those who spar are better at sparring than those who dont

Does what depend on what skill?

The curriculum is the curriculum... Although this may seem to be Terence's invention it's not because this is exactly what I was taught and it makes sense..

The curriculum is a process--like high school.. Once you complete high school you go off to college... You never stay in high school for "deeper" learning.

The other issue is that some "high schools" are better than others and continuing the analogy, some "graduates" still have trouble reading and writing clearly even after graduating....


Sure, that's the purpose of the curriculum.



This is a mental trap. You will have to do some searching to understand why..

The bottom line is that it's about an activity...a thing you do--fighting.. Doing the activity itself is how you get better at it... Good sparring--whatever the format--is the activity... This is the lesson of the sport model. It doesn't matter that a given sparring format is not "exactly the same as" your idealized view of some imaginary fight... No two fights are the same anyway.. The key is that you can only learn to fight by fighting.. In this case sparring is how you train fighting..

Now, you can look at different ways to do that.. What equipment is best for your needs, what sparring format, rules, etc.. But don't fool yourself into thinking that just because there ARE rules that somehow the activity is gone or diminished, because the skills, the activity is very much in play.... No 1%-2% differential changes that and tests in no rule matches shows that...

It's simple really, do it or don't do it but you won't get better by not doing it.

[Sifujohncheung]

To put it simply, practise makes perfect! So, whatever Martial arts you're in, keep training. All True Martial Artist are very passionate about their arts, and inevitably they will train their bodies to further their arts. Knowledge is only part of it, and is just as important as the physical part(i.e. lots of sweats!).