Does WC answer the question......

[canglong]

It's up to the party making a claim to provide evidence to support it, -not for others to disprove it. How can you disprove something that stubbornly avoids the best tests of it's effectiveness that are available (MMA / minimal rules fighting)??

Lawrence, the "claim" or statement that was referenced was written as first hand knowledge from an individual sharing a direct personal experience. Personal test don't get any clearer than that but of course that doesn't appear to be good enough.

Saying (my) WCK "works" or that I "know" WCK "works" doesn't make it so.

When someone's experience differs from that of your own or Terence it should not be looked upon as a "claim" but more of an explaination of an experienced fact. Though you may disagree with the results for a variety of valid reasons it will not change the facts of any particular individual experience which again is why it is fruitless for Terence or anyone else to say to every individual on this board that their experience is anything less than what they perceive it to be. Terence saying that a person's remarks are unfounded and wrong doesn't make them so either that is a circular discussion with no end.

As far as speaking to any "claims" being made wing chun does have some constants to offer that might be consider "claims" by some just to name a few it is simple, direct and effiecient based on principles and concepts that will not change according to individual variables such as height, weight and or age.

That being the case it is more productive in these particular type of discussions to focus on the constants of wing chun than the variables of individuals. So again the question remains...where do you find the constants of wing chun itself to be flawed if at all?

[canglong]

Hello Edmund,

Well it's flawed in areas outside it's expertise like groundfighting. I suppose you could argue that it's not a flaw exactly but something that it was not designed for.

What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?

[Chango]

What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?
Today 03:57 AM

Tony,
As I read this post I think this question becomes a great point at which it could go further then someone discreditiing someone opinion and or experience.

I think it should be noted that Tony's question does not ask about technique but strategy, tactics, concepts and Principles! I'm very interested in the reply on this becuase I can't see where thing things cannot be applied!

[Edmund]

Hello Edmund,
What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?

Well I don't think WC has a strategy that even advocates groundfighting. As I said before that's not necessarily a flaw.

Perhaps you could extrapolate some of the more vague strategies to apply to groundfighting but that's not quite the same as advocating groundfighting.

[t_niehoff]

Lawrence, the "claim" or statement that was referenced was written as first hand knowledge from an individual sharing a direct personal experience. Personal test don't get any clearer than that but of course that doesn't appear to be good enough. When someone's experience differs from that of your own or Terence it should not be looked upon as a "claim" but more of an explaination of an experienced fact. Though you may disagree with the results for a variety of valid reasons it will not change the facts of any particular individual experience which again is why it is fruitless for Terence or anyone else to say to every individual on this board that their experience is anything less than what they perceive it to be. Terence saying that a person's remarks are unfounded and wrong doesn't make them so either that is a circular discussion with no end.

As far as speaking to any "claims" being made wing chun does have some constants to offer that might be consider "claims" by some just to name a few it is simple, direct and effiecient based on principles and concepts that will not change according to individual variables such as height, weight and or age.

That being the case it is more productive in these particular type of discussions to focus on the constants of wing chun than the variables of individuals. So again the question remains...where do you find the constants of wing chun itself to be flawed if at all?

Anything said on this forum is a "claim". No one should believe anything that is said on a forum or a website -- or from their sifu -- until they investigate it for themselves. Investigation means doing the necessary work. Arguing endlessly about why my theory is better that your theory is the circle, Tony. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes . . . . The work is the only way to put an end to the circle. The work will validate or invalidate the claim.

Personally, I take the views of some people (on this forum) -- like Dale, Lawrence, and a few more -- as being more credible (not that I necessarily agree with them) than others because I know they are doing "the work." How do I know they are doing "the work"? By the things they say. For example, no one who has put in the time sparring with good grapplers or groundfighters is going to argue the position that WCK has groundfighting or has an answer for groundfighting. No one. People shouldn't take my word for it though; see for themselves. Do "the work": go down to the BJJ or MMA school. Or just look at who is saying what -- there are plenty of solid grapplers on this forum (blues or purples in BJJ, etc.); are any of them saying WCK has groundfighting? If I'm wrong, let's see it instead of hearing the arguments. Easy enough to prove, isn't it? Just take that camcorder with you to open mat night at the BJJ school. Funny how we *never* see that.

People who do not put in "the work" really don't have a clue. All they have is hearsay (this is what I have been told by the grandmaster and like a good parrot I will repeat it) or conjecture. Sure they believe they have the answers. In reality, they aren't even fully aware of the problems. You can only appreciate the problems by encountering them -- for real, on the mat, in the ring, etc. Don't believe me? Fine. Visit the local MMA gym and see for yourself. Take the camcorder along. I'll wager you'll encounter some brand new "problems."

Anyone who is doing the work of regularly sparring with good, solid (MMA or equivalent) fighters is not going to argue that WCK is inherently superior or more direct or more efficient or whatever than other martial arts. They'll know better. See for yourself; do "the work." And as I said above, these things are easy enough to prove. All it takes is a camcorder and a visit to a good MMA school. Of course, people will keep arguing how their theory is best, they are scientific, they are blah, blah, blah -- they'll talk you to death about how it will work (in theory), all the while overcomplicating it, overthinking it, misunderstanding the real problems, etc. And they'll just never seem to make it down to the MMA school with a camcorder.

Tony argues that WCK is "simple, direct, and efficient" -- well, I guess it all depends on how you define those words (WCK people love tautologies). Boxing, muay thai, wrestling, judo, BJJ, sambo, etc. could all be called simple, direct, and efficient. In fact, anyone who is any good (skilled) at what they do will appear to be simple, direct, and efficient. This is meaningless dribble. Visit the MMA gyms and you will find your "simple, direct, and efficient" @ss being knocked silly!

Where are the flaws in the "principle, concept, tactic or strategy" of boxing or muay thai or BJJ or wrestling or sambo or judo or MMA or whatever? Let's see you take advantage of those "flaws". And, please, take the camcorder.

If the truth be told, what fighting method you train in (WCK or whatever) is far, far less important than *how* you train.

Terence

[lawrenceofidaho]

So again the question remains...where do you find the constants of wing chun itself to be flawed if at all?

Simply because the "constants of Wing Chun", do not violate principles of logic which can be pointed out in an intellectual discussion, -does not somehow mean that they are necessarily "true."


Suppose I tell you that I have created the most simple, direct, and effective fighting system ever, and it consists only of a boxing jab....... Then I go on to explain (logically) how in every theoretical fighting situation, I am able to apply this jab and knock out my opponents whether they are strikers, grapplers, or using weapons. -How can anyone "disprove" me?? I mean, it's logically possible, right?


One might say; "Well, I've faced fighters who jabbed before, and I defended it with technique x, and countered with y." Then I might reply how they were not fighting someone who really knew how to throw the jab correctly, because if they knew my secret way of doing it, there is no effective defense. I could go on and on about my style and never say something that's illogical, or that couldn't be replied to by saying that the only reason a jab ever let anyone down is because they weren't doing it right.


At that point, Terence, Dale, or someone else would probably ask me to report about how my system worked after I sparred (hard contact & minimal rules) with some skilled fighters. I might then reply that my students and I don't spar or compete in that way because the 4 oz gloves hinder our energy transfer and the rules are set up so our special jabs won't be as effective.


Although Terence and Dale might point out that in thousands of MMA competitions, less than 0.1% have been won by a fighter who used the jab exclusively, and that fighters who are consistantly successful need to have more of an arsenal in case the jab fails. I can reply by saying that my students and I kick a$$ on the street all the time, and nothing they can point out will disuade me from believing in my system since no one can show how it's principles are flawed or contradictory.


What would you tell a friend who read one of my magazine ads about my ultimate , simple system (that could be learned and used effectively by anyone regardless of age, size, or athletic ability), and was thinking about signing a contract to join my school?? My sales pitch made perfect sense to him, and he seemed especially convinced after he saw several videos on my website featuring demos of me defeating various types of attacks (from my students) with my special jab.


Would you tell your friend that I am full of it? (How could you? -I mean, you've never "crossed hands" with me, or spent years training the "real" jab with me.)

[Edmund]

Tony,
As I read this post I think this question becomes a great point at which it could go further then someone discreditiing someone opinion and or experience.

I think it should be noted that Tony's question does not ask about technique but strategy, tactics, concepts and Principles! I'm very interested in the reply on this becuase I can't see where thing things cannot be applied!

Sorry Chango.
I should have spent a bit more time on my reply given your interest!
It's such a broad question I don't know where to start.

I think it's more that WC lacks any technicalities of the ground game.

The basic ideas of putting your opponent in the guard is already going outside of WC regular positions. Holddowns like kesa gatame are pretty fundamental. Collar chokes. I would classify them more as tactics not techniques.

Your basic movements on the ground like sitting up, shrimping and bridging. You're pretty much screwed if you can't do something like that.

[Edmund]

Suppose I tell you that I have created the most simple, direct, and effective fighting system ever, and it consists only of a boxing jab....... Then I go on to explain (logically) how in every theoretical fighting situation, I am able to apply this jab and knock out my opponents whether they are strikers, grapplers, or using weapons. -How can anyone "disprove" me?? I mean, it's logically possible, right?

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.

No one's doing a sales pitch that they're invincible with one jab KOs.
I don't think Tony's argument is *that* dumb.

And it's not like his school never even competes against other styles.
Wasn't there a post on here just now about HFY guys winning a few full contact striking and MMA bouts?

[lawrenceofidaho]

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.

No one's doing a sales pitch that they're invincible with one jab KOs.
I don't think Tony's argument is *that* dumb.

It was intentionally "over-the-top"....... The point was to show a hypothetical argument that cries out to be refuted because of it's absurdity, -yet cannot be, because it's theories do not violate logical principles, and it avoids tests which could invalidate it's claims.

And it's not like his school never even competes against other styles. Wasn't there a post on here just now about HFY guys winning a few full contact striking and MMA bouts?

It was mentioned on another thread that there were two teenagers and an adult that entered a kung fu san shou tourney (strikes & takedowns) and won medals. I have never heard mention of an HFY practicioner considering MMA.

I would like to see footage of those san shou matches and have Tony narrate to point out what the HFY guys were doing that is unique and different from what a guy from any generic Wing Chun club would be doing.

[canglong]

Anything said on this forum is a "claim". No one should believe anything that is said on a forum or a website -- or from their sifu -- until they investigate it for themselves. Investigation means doing the necessary work. Arguing endlessly about why my theory is better that your theory is the circle, Tony. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes . . . . The work is the only way to put an end to the circle. The work will validate or invalidate the claim.

Terence the probability of you validating every post on this or any other website are between very very slim and absolutely none which is precisely why it is considred a discussion board and not an action board.

Personally, I take the views of some people (on this forum) -- like Dale, Lawrence, and a few more -- as being more credible (not that I necessarily agree with them) than others because I know they are doing "the work."

If that works for you roll with it.

How do I know they are doing "the work"?

You don't.

Just take that camcorder with you to open mat night at the BJJ school.

Take the camcorder along.

All it takes is a camcorder and a visit to a good MMA school.

Terence, if you want to be a hollywood starlet go right ahead but not all celluloid is faultless.

And they'll just never seem to make it down to the MMA school with a camcorder

Terence you stole Jim's line because he said that very thing about you and your not for public disemenation videos you have all over the internet.

Tony argues that WCK is "simple, direct, and efficient" --

Terence that is not my argument that is wing chun's argument as taught to me. From that teaching no falicies have been discovered if you have found them now would be a good time to share them on paper or video your choice.

In fact, anyone who is any good (skilled) at what they do will appear to be simple, direct, and efficient. This is meaningless dribble....Where are the flaws in the "principle, concept, tactic or strategy" of boxing or muay thai or BJJ or wrestling or sambo or judo or MMA or whatever?

Not really a bad point of discussion here because Terence your narrow minded views won't allow you to see what Bruce Lee saw. A punch is just a punch a kick is just a kick. Your unwillingness to remove the labels and just see individual fighters is part of the problem. Terence you don't see groundfighting in wing chun because when you see groundfighting you see BJJ while others like Bruce Lee would see the principle of loi lau hoi sung. The principle behind the technique is far more important to advancing your skill than the label you might give the technique. So when the principles of wing chun are applied to groundfighting it is unimportant what label you attach to them what is important is that the principle that we learned through training of wing chun for myself or other arts or styles for others be adhered to and applied correctly no matter the label. It is insignificant whether the practitioner be standing, grappling or on the ground you should be familiar with technique but if you understand the principle then you stand a far better chance of being able to execute the principle and counter it as well because a good rule of thumb is as follows in fighting behind every technique lies a principle that needs to be fully understood in order to execute the technique with any kind of repetative skill and that principle may be easy for some to see yet not so easy for others because if you focus on the technique the principle can often get lost in too narrow a focus of training.

[canglong]

Would you tell your friend that I am full of it? (How could you? -I mean, you've never "crossed hands" with me, or spent years training the "real" jab with me.)

Lawrence, why would you want to make the discussion personal you know what you know and others are no better or worse so if you have something to add to further the discussion stick to it if not don't think that others who disagree with you will automatically dislike you. Your argument and what I stated earlier are not the same thing if you can't see that what is there to discuss.

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.

Edmund,
Exactly!

[canglong]

I would like to see footage of those san shou matches and have Tony narrate to point out what the HFY guys were doing that is unique and different from what a guy from any generic Wing Chun club would be doing.

Lawrence, what earlier statement(s) has you convinced that what was being done shown or demostrated would be "different"

[Knifefighter]

Suppose I tell you that I have created the most simple, direct, and effective fighting system ever, and it consists only of a boxing jab....... Then I go on to explain (logically) how in every theoretical fighting situation, I am able to apply this jab and knock out my opponents whether they are strikers, grapplers, or using weapons. -How can anyone "disprove" me?? I mean, it's logically possible, right?

Great analogy.

[Knifefighter]

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.

It was a great analogy... simple and easy to understand. Simply expand on it and add in more "techniques" and you've got the same argument that a lot of people make for their systems.

Just look at the ludicrous statement made on the "K1" thread about the instructor who was invincible to arm bars.

[Knifefighter]

Terence that is not my argument that is wing chun's argument as taught to me. From that teaching no falicies have been discovered if you have found them now would be a good time to share them on paper or video your choice.

From a theoretical point of view, no system has faults. Karate, Tae Kwon Do, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Sambo... all are perfect fighting systems in theory.

A punch is just a punch a kick is just a kick.

Not at all... a high roundhouse kick is completely different than a low-level push kick to the knee. A jab is completely different than an uppercut.

A step through kick from Muay Thai is completely different than a "step through" kick from Savate.

There are many differences in how different styles use techniques and how those techniques are done in individual styles.