Wing Chun and fighting-How to do it?

[yylee]

this thread is getting a little tense!

Let's enjoy 5 minutes' worth of pure fighting vids. Just to get your mind off the talks.

http://southbostonoffline.com/fights.wmv

now here is a real test for your YJKYM, there is no short of momentum, Chin-Na, ground fights, chain punches, everthing....

Merry Christmas!

[Ernie]

Originally posted by yylee
this thread is getting a little tense!

Let's enjoy 5 minutes' worth of pure fighting vids. Just to get your mind off the talks.

http://southbostonoffline.com/fights.wmv

now here is a real test for your YJKYM, there is no short of momentum, Chin-Na, ground fights, chain punches, everthing....

Merry Christmas!

my girl friends sister took me to a hockey game [i'm not into sports at all]

she said i would enjoy the fights , i said what fights ?

they drop there stick take off there head gear and hug

me i would be hitting with the stick and kicking with the bladed skates

just think how cool it would be to stomp some one with a skate blade

she looked at me like i was insane

[old jong]

A few years ago,Eric Lindros;a big red neck farmer and goon hockey player (around 6' 8" on his skates and 250 pds) saw Elvis Stoiko,a canadian figure skater!...He could not resist and called Elvis a ***got!...What happened made history as little Elvis (maybe 5'7' and 150pds) gave the big jerk the beating of his lifetime!...
Elvis had been training in Hung Gar for many years....We simply cant trust our ***s antmore!...

[YongChun]

Originally posted by old jong
A few years ago,Eric Lindros;a big red neck farmer and goon hockey player (around 6' 8" on his skates and 250 pds) saw Elvis Stoiko,a canadian figure skater!...He could not resist and called Elvis a ***got!...What happened made history as little Elvis (maybe 5'7' and 150pds) gave the big jerk the beating of his lifetime!...
Elvis had been training in Hung Gar for many years....We simply cant trust our ***s antmore!...

Here is a link to his teachers. http://www.angelfire.com/wi/StojkoMosaic/052199.html
I studied under James Lore in 1969. The teacher was definitely into fighting. His model was dryland swimming and then real fighting.

Ray

[kj]

Likewise, Keith.

Regards,
- kj

[yylee]

Originally posted by Ernie
me i would be hitting with the stick and kicking with the bladed skates

just think how cool it would be to stomp some one with a skate blade

LOL, BJD with the legs!

she looked at me like i was insane

Told you, you should be in movie biz

[Ernie]

Originally posted by yylee
LOL, BJD with the legs!




Told you, you should be in movie biz

to let a secret out i was

[KPM]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
JR wrote:

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again?

**You're not going to "learn" anything from clips -- get your @sses out on the floor, mats, whatever, and mix it up. That's the only way. You learn and develop by doing. Theoreticians love clips, so they can sit in their armchairs and critique based on their fantasy-driven notions of how WCK *should* (that word is a theoretician giveaway btw) be done. Then "debate" whether "theoretically" that clip was good or bad, etc. It's nonsense.

--Terence... that sure sounds like rationalization for not being willing to send in video clips to me. I think its time for you to either "put up or shut up", and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. Lots of people here are getting tired of you jumping in on various discussions with the same old line of "fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" Everyone here is welcome to participate in any discussion they want. But we can only hear the same thing so many times. I remember that once upon a time you actually had some valuable things to contribute. How about going back to those days? One of the main problems is that what you call "fighting" most of us here would refer to as "sparring." Lots of us are doing exactly that....though you still choose to label us as "non-fighters". Its all in how we define things. You choose to define something inyour own way, which confuses many people that don't realize that is what is happening, and then blast everyone that doesn't share your own views. How about showing us that you really do practice what you preach?

Keith

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
As I remember, in one of our discussions you even said something to the effect of how you could "extrapoloate" from the drills (like chi sao) into fighitng. See -- that's being a theoretician. Do fighters theorize too? Sure. But they test rather than rely on those theories. The testing makes them practitioners as they are actually using the method.

I believe you were referring to these questions, which I posed first on the "What Level are You?" thread, and later inquired again on the "Fighters and Non-fighters" thread:

Originally posted by t_niehoff
This is a simplifed version of how we train:

Step one -- learn a form, not necessarily a linked set, but a technique, a point (yau dim), a san sik, etc. and the extensions of that form.

Step two -- drill it so that the student can get the "feel" (what I call "the comfortability stage").

Step three -- put that into a fighting environment.

I use this progression from the very beginning. The first thing a student learns is the punch, it's extensions, and associated body mechanics (punch from YJKYM, and it's extentions). Then we drill it until he has the "feel" for it. Then we put it into fighting.

Your way of describing things is interesting and spurs some further questions:

a) It appears that you are implying a correlation between the skills in practice and the fighting scenario. To that end, in a “real” fighting environment, which is by its nature totally random and unpredictable, how do you ensure that an explicit and appropriate situation arises for the learner to employ and practice the specific technique (sic) of interest?

b) Do you restrict the learner to specific techniques in a “real fight” in order to ensure they are practiced? This could raise a whole slew of related questions.

c) If parceling out techniques for practice individually or in phases (e.g., they only know how to punch), how is the safety of the learner ensured when in the random, unpredictable, and immenently threatening "real" fighting environment that may demand much more than that particular technique or subset of skills?


The questions were both reasonable and serious. They do not deserve your continued mockery and neither do I. They also served as an opportunity for you to illustrate that there is some method behind the madness, so to speak. I'm sure many others are curious and interested too. Sound answers could even win over some skeptics; if so, you're welcome.

Regards,
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally posted by hunt1
At this point I we understand that several members of the forum think that you have to fight to learn how to use wing chun.
Could we take it to the next level please? What has fighting taught you exactly? For example It would be instructive if someone said I was taught to do bong sau this way but I have found when fighting it is better used that way.

This is a wing chun forum after all and once upon a time discussions actually talked about how to use wing chun.

This was the original post on this thread - anybody remember it?

Sounds like Hunter wants to go back to the days wherein we spent some time discussing how to use WC in this or that situation...as opposed to now...wherein it's mainly "either you're a fighter or you're not" that characterizes the main gist of the majority of threads.

It's a bit of a dilemma that I think Jim Roselando may have provided a third way answer to - videos. Definitely gonna make it my business to post some - hopefully in the near future.

But it's a good idea, and would (could) go a long way toward - if not actually resolving - then at the very least bringing some clarity to - what the "two camps" around here are trying to say.

About wing chun and fighting...about how to use your bong sao in ways you may not have been originally taught, by way of one little example. About what kinds of training/conditioning/sparring one needs to really be able to fight well - about why some WC people advocate crosstraining in grappling arts...about a lot of things.

And I have to agree that Terence's point about "not being able to learn anything from videos - just go out and fight"...is puzzling to me - as it is seemingly puzzling to some other people as well.

If we want the "theoreticians" to either shut up or put up...then we "fighters" have to be held to the same standard.

[KPM]

Victor wrote:
Sounds like Hunter wants to go back to the days wherein we spent some time discussing how to use WC in this or that situation...as opposed to now...wherein it's mainly "either you're a fighter or you're not" that characterizes the main gist of the majority of threads.

---Only the threads that Terence feels the need to participate in. He is the one that has "drawn the line in the sand" and likes to label people. I keep asking him "where's the balance", but he keeps ignoring that question. You and I know that nothing is ever so black and white. A big part of the problem is that Terence has chosen to define "fighting" the way most would define "sparring", and many don't realize that. There are many gradations and intensity levels in progressive sparring situations. He has created this dichotomy where none really exists and then keeps hammering it in. The truth is that many if not most of us here do more than just forms and chi sau. We try to "functionalize" our training with progressive sparring drills that become as realistic as feasible. But we still value a "traditional" approach to training and learning and are willing to question our ability and experience rather than the traditional teaching itself if something doesn't work for us right off the bat in a sparring situation. We also value discussions about "why" WCK works (theory), and how other lineages teach or practice certain things. With his extremist stance, Terence seems to deny all of that. He comes across as someone that endorses training at full tilt trying to hurt his partner (opponent?) during every training session. He sounds like someone who would endorse going out on Saturday night and looking for the opportunity to test his skills in the parking lot of the local nightclub. I don't really believe all that of him, but that is certainly the impression he leaves on this forum. KPM

It's a bit of a dilemma that I think Jim Roselando may have provided a third way answer to - videos. Definitely gonna make it my business to post some - hopefully in the near future.

---I think it is an excellent idea as well. I also think Hunt's original purpose for this thread was a good one. Why haven't more of the "fighters" posted with things that they have learned or things they have changed about their WCK based on their fighting experience? And I don't buy the line "I don't think in terms of technique anymore." That's total ...B....S.... Terence says that fighting experience should be the guide to what your WCK consists of, and not traditional teaching. So.....has Terence stopped practicing the Chum Kiu form because Chor Ma Double Lan technique is not useful in fighting? Has he learned to fold his Bong Sau over in application because it smothers the other guys technique better in a fighting situation? Has he learned to hold his Mon Sau guard position higher because most people nowadays are "head-hunters"? What's so hard about actually contributing to the conversation rather than always coming back with "fight!fight!fight! or your wing chun is worthless!"? KPM


And I have to agree that Terence's point about "not being able to learn anything from videos - just go out and fight"...is puzzling to me - as it is seemingly puzzling to some other people as well.

---Like I said above, I think it is just rationalization for not being willing to send in clips of himself. KPM

If we want the "theoreticians" to either shut up or put up...then we "fighters" have to be held to the same standard.

---Exactly. After all, this is just a discussion forum. Everything we say here is purely theoretical, because we can't see what the other person is doing or is capable of. So even Terence's extremist position is purely theoretical when he talks about it in a discussion forum unless there is evidence that he backs it up. KPM

Keith

[t_niehoff]

KPM wrote:

--Terence... that sure sounds like rationalization for not being willing to send in video clips to me. I think its time for you to either "put up or shut up",

**Let me repost something I wrote in the HFY forum:

**Tell me what part of this don't you understand -- we're discussing training methods for becoming a skilled fighter. Folks that have proven themselves skilled fighters, like boxers, BJJ, MMAist, muay thai, etc. all train with the same model. That model exists whether I can fight or not. You can't dispute those results. Now, if you think that you or someone else has found a different model that produces skilled fighters, then great -- where are the results? I don't need to step up and fight to prove that the model that produced Rickson, Tyson, etc. works. I could be a a quadraplegic and the evidence that this model produces skilled fighters would still exist. But if you, for whatever reason, want to see how well I can fight, visit St. Louis -- I'll be more than happy to mix it up with you.

**So, Keith, when are you going to visit?

and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. Lots of people here are getting tired of you jumping in on various discussions with the same old line of "fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" Everyone here is welcome to participate in any discussion they want.

**Yes, they are.

But we can only hear the same thing so many times.

**You know, I feel exactly the same way! I'm tired of the same-old nonfighter/theoretician perspective.

I remember that once upon a time you actually had some valuable things to contribute. How about going back to those days? One of the main problems is that what you call "fighting" most of us here would refer to as "sparring." Lots of us are doing exactly that....though you still choose to label us as "non-fighters". Its all in how we define things. You choose to define something inyour own way, which confuses many people that don't realize that is what is happening, and then blast everyone that doesn't share your own views. How about showing us that you really do practice what you preach?

**Sparring every once in a while isn't what I'm talking about. People with proven fighting skills use fighting as the core of their training, with everything else supporting that. Lots of people "spar" -- but it is a game of tag and doesn't reflect genuine intensity, intent, or resistance.

[t_niehoff]

KJ wrote:

Your way of describing things is interesting and spurs some further questions:

a) It appears that you are implying a correlation between the skills in practice and the fighting scenario. To that end, in a “real” fighting environment, which is by its nature totally random and unpredictable, how do you ensure that an explicit and appropriate situation arises for the learner to employ and practice the specific technique (sic) of interest?

**Let me begin by pointing out that we can already fight (though generally poorly). The goal of our training is to make us better. Progressively better. We do that by not "learning the whole system" and then trying to implement it all at once (so that we don't actually begin to be able to fight better until "the end") which will make the whole process too complicated for a trainee but by taking each point, step by step, and putting each into our fighting (so that we, little by little, get more and more skill). This way, we are progressively refining our natural fighting, building on what we already naturally do. And as the tools build on each other, we can see how they fit into WCK's method, etc.

**How does one know what the "appropriate situation" is? Someone tell you? Or do you find that for yourself by trying to use whatever you have? Moreoever, fighting is a matter of using what we have at the moment. If someone is attacked but only has a limited number of "techniques" (because they are a beginner, for example) what do they do? They make do. You can't ask the attacker to come back after you've "completed the system." So a trainee with just the jik chung choi will use that tool to do every job imaginable. If something happens in fighting where that tool won't work, they'll improvise (perhaps poorly). But that will give them insight into the limitations they have, what they need, why they need it, etc.

**In BJJ, for example, you don't wait until you learn "the entire system" to begin rolling, you begin right away. Sure you have limited things you can do, but that lets you focus on doing them, setting them up, etc. And you're a better groundfighter with those few things than you were before you had them. You'll have lots of holes in your groundfighting, make a lot of mistakes, etc. but that's part of the learning process.

b) Do you restrict the learner to specific techniques in a “real fight” in order to ensure they are practiced? This could raise a whole slew of related questions.

**We do have "sparring drills" where we isolate certain things to focus on them, if that's what you mean. But typically a trainee will use whatever they have at the moment.

c) If parceling out techniques for practice individually or in phases (e.g., they only know how to punch), how is the safety of the learner ensured when in the random, unpredictable, and immenently threatening "real" fighting environment that may demand much more than that particular technique or subset of skills?

**Let me ask you a question, how do you think someone can learn to deal with a genuine attack if they never deal with a genuine attack? And in fighting, no one does single attacks -- so we have to learn to deal with the whole enchilada. In fighting practice, we wear protective gear. And, we all go into it with the realization that we are there to learn, to develop, not to just pound on the other guy. And the trainer is always there to intercede. Also, it is by getting into this environment that the trainee develops the conditioning to not be injured. You see, in "real fights" everyone and anyone is going to be hit. There is only one way to learn how to deal with that.


The questions were both reasonable and serious. They do not deserve your continued mockery and neither do I. They also served as an opportunity for you to illustrate that there is some method behind the madness, so to speak. I'm sure many others are curious and interested too. Sound answers could even win over some skeptics; if so, you're welcome.

**I hope my answers gave you better insight into what I'm talking about.

[Ernie]

KPM= And I don't buy the line "I don't think in terms of technique anymore." That's total ...B....S.... Terence says that fighting experience should be the guide to what your WCK consists of, and not traditional teaching. So.....has Terence stopped practicing the Chum Kiu form because Chor Ma Double Lan technique is not useful in fighting? Has he learned to fold his Bong Sau over in application because it smothers the other guys technique better in a fighting situation? Has he learned to hold his Mon Sau guard position higher because most people nowadays are "head-hunters"?




Well actually I think I might have been the one that said that, and T agreed =)
And I was just being honest, things like the shapes are just static moments and reference points, they give the feeling of proper alignment and connection for things like power release absorbing deflecting and so on

Once you have the [feeling] of these static postures [forms] and the basic idea for there usage [a lan sau is done line this blah blah] you must learn to apply and find the timing.

But this is all just part of the training system, you are still in the bubble if you seek the perfect bong sau [or any hand or posture] in a chi sau environment, then in theory your are still chasing hands, your chasing a mental image of what you think things should look like, instead of relating to the problem and person in front of you.

This is more of a robotic way of trying to fight! If your not relating your not being natural your trying to [do the form] on some one, and it won’t work right, you will be crashing and bumping or getting jammed up

This is when a person try’s to force the training system [forms shapes, chi sau] into a non-training environment

Were you should just be relating to energy and distance, timing, lines off attack, position Etc.

You will use more the feeling of connection or power or absorption and so on then the actual fixed shape

This is when you grow past the training system and things just become natural

Problem is people tend to stay trapped in the training system it makes them feel safe and powerful because it’s a controlled environment


So yes I know longer think in shapes or forms, more concept and application with respect to the person and situation I’m facing

I find this very common with most skilled people from any type of art, you don’t find seasoned people talking to other seasoned people about static postures or weighting of the feet etc. it’s more along the lines of attributes, training methods to improve there combative skill, improving timing, distance, power, speed, feeling, being relaxed
While under heavy pressure


But I know people love security blankets and there is nothing wrong with staying with in the confines of what makes you feel safe and confident

Just not my thing

[Ultimatewingchun]

"And I don't buy the line "I don't think in terms of technique anymore." That's total ...B....S...." (KPM)

"Actually I think I might have been the one that said that, and T agreed...things like the shapes are just static moments and reference points, they give the feeling of proper alignment and connection for things like power release absorbing deflecting...Once you have the feeling of these static postures [forms] and the basic idea for there usage [a lan sau is done line this blah blah] you must learn to apply and find the timing. (Ernie)


This is one of those rare times when I have to disagree with Ernie. I still think in terms of technique - even after all these years. For example...if I see a a backfist...I'm usually thinking quan sao.

If I see a hook punch...I'm usually thinking a very tight inside biu-larp sao. If I see a double leg takedown - I'm thinking sprawl.

If I see a roundhouse kick aimed at the back of my lead leg - I'm thinking of picking up my lead leg and facing the point of contact with my calf and follow with....this and that.

In fact - I'm oversimplifying a bit - because I've programmed more than one response to many different kinds of attacks and situations into my mind/muscle memory. Depending on the situation/position, etc.

But the point is - I do use SPECIFIC techniques in various fight scenarios...but because I'm constantly SPARRING - variations on the themes constantly emerge - as well as ocasionally coming to the point of recognizing that technique A , which I may have used in the past in a certain situation, is not as efficicent as technique B...which I may have recently discovered or learned.

And most important of all - there comes a point wherein something within takes over - and the "thinking" (or choosing between this or that response) - occurs on an almost sub-conscious level...sometimes on a very conscious level - sometimes on a semi-conscious level - sometimes completely subconscious...and the "body" takes over and just does it.

But in truth - it's NOT the body just taking over. IT IS THE MIND...but on a scale of speed that is so rapid that it just "seems" like you didn't think - and it was simply the body. It's not.

It's the mind - and the mind (and body) has to constantly drill specific techniques in specific situations to the point of mastery...and then the improvisation can begin - and be very fight efficient.