Does WC answer the question......

[Knifefighter]

It's always perspective isn't it. Wing Chun says two peope at equal distance apart dependent upon varying factors of time space and energy means a straight punch can be and most often is the more efficient and appropriate punch as opposed to using a round punch. Wing Chun's principles, concepts, strategies and tactics for hand-to-hand combat in the example given and as studied in general are a blueprint to producing a better fighter not a guarantee. If one were to find flaws in those principles or concepts then yes one could argue that the blueprint itself is flawed and something less flawed might need to be incorporated into that person's training.

If the blueprint is saying that a straight punch is more efficient and appropriate than a round punch (assuming you are referring to punches like hooks and uppercuts with the elbow bent), then the blueprint is flawed.

Neither is more or less efficient than the other.

[tbone]

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.

Well, since you didn't see it on UFC or Pride it must not have happened...

MMA LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHTS
Lonnie Dodge Vs Chris Nelson
Nelson starts this war with a jab, right, overhand right, but is immediately countered by Dodge's right, overhand right as these fighters slug it out! Dodge connects with a powerhouse right that drops Nelson and Dodge moves in for the finish! Nelson attempts to move to his feet, but Dodge is relentless with another right forcing Nelson to submit! Dodge ends this war with superior striking!
WINNER by Tap Out at :45 of Round One - Dodge.

http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFNews.htm

Lonnie Dodge, Lee's Summit, Missouri, USA, 0-0, 205, 5'10", 8-4-67, Dac Lam, (816) 863-5024, - (8-28-06)

http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFAMRankings.htm

[lawrenceofidaho]

MMA LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHTS
Lonnie Dodge Vs Chris Nelson
Nelson starts this war with a jab, right, overhand right, but is immediately countered by Dodge's right, overhand right as these fighters slug it out! Dodge connects with a powerhouse right that drops Nelson and Dodge moves in for the finish! Nelson attempts to move to his feet, but Dodge is relentless with another right forcing Nelson to submit! Dodge ends this war with superior striking!
WINNER by Tap Out at :45 of Round One - Dodge.

Lonnie Dodge, Lee's Summit, Missouri, USA, 0-0, 205, 5'10", 8-4-67, Dac Lam, (816) 863-5024, - (8-28-06)

Props to Lonnie Dodge.......

Did he learn the "overhand right" in the HFY kwoon or the boxing gym?

[t_niehoff]

Most WCK theory is BS. It's useless. That's not, however, what people who play around theorizing want to hear. Or what people who market their methods by promoting how superior their theory is want you to hear. And what is ironic is how the people with the greatest amount of theory - layers upon layers, a literal morass of theory - always seem to argue how "simple" WCK is.

At it's very best, WCK theory is meant to be a simple guide (so you need very little theory) to get a beginner into playing the game (a framework from which to begin to grow). We only learn and develop as fighters by actually playing the game (fighting). Since beginners lack experience to guide them in fighting, they need something, a direction. That's all theory does: it gives beginners a way of organizing their play. And as we grow through playing the game (fighting), our exerience replaces theory. Expert players (fighters) are guided by experience (they know what works, when it works, etc. from having done it over and over). So does it really matter what your theory is? Not really. It's going to be replaced anyway.

People who don't play (fight) only have theory (and forms and drills). And that's all they will ever have. For them theory is proscriptive -- "you must or should do it this way". And they believe training is meant to inculcate strict adherence to theory. They just don't get it. This isn't how human beings develop skill in open-skill activities. And WCK is no different than any other open-skill, athletic game.

Terence

[t_niehoff]

Props to Lonnie Dodge.......

Did he learn the "overhand right" in the HFY kwoon or the boxing gym?

In evaluating these things, the first thing we need to look at is whether our fighting matches what we are training to do. If I am training to move one way, to do certain things, but they never come out in fighting, how can they be called fighting skills? How useful is my training if I train one thing but do something else when fighting? (This, btw, is the main complaint among nonWCK people about the Cheung-Boztepe fight).

The next thing is at what level (of opposition) can we do it.

Terence

[lawrenceofidaho]

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.

Tony, I did not intend to make anything personal.

I only brought up the hypothetical "jab system" to illustrate the fact that a claim can be logically sound and still be completely divorced from reality.

[Edmund]

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.

Well they aren't avoiding tests if they enter comps though.

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 thought they had a guy win a MMA bout in Kansas City Missouri. (Why is Kansas City in Missouri?)

[tbone]

Props to Lonnie Dodge.......

Did he learn the "overhand right" in the HFY kwoon or the boxing gym?

Lonnie has been studying HFY under Dac Lam for a couple of years now. For the last year or so this club has been interested in participating in MMA events. I have not been able to continue to train with them for the last year so I cannot be certain that Lonnie hasn't looked into boxing somewhere. I can assume that is not the case since he still has Dac Lam as his trainer/coach. I plan on training again soon so I'll see if I can get more detail on his training when I see him.

[Edmund]

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.

That was ludicrous.

I don't think Tony's arguments are at the same level of crazy.

[tbone]

Well they aren't avoiding tests if they enter comps though.




I thought they had a guy win a MMA bout in Kansas City Missouri. (Why is Kansas City in Missouri?)

Yeah but the comps aren't UFC or Pride so they don't count.

Lonnie Dodge did win an amateur MMA bout in KC, MO. See my above post.

Kansas City is in both Missouri and Kansas... weird huh? Kind of like St. Louis being in both Missouri and Illinois.

[Edmund]

Principles are definitely more important than individual techniques.

However, principles change depending on the environment. While it is possible to use some WC principles on the ground, groundfighting principles override most WC principles and must be understood first before one can apply WC principles- at least against someone who already understands groundfighting principles.

That's stating it better than I did.

Without those other more fundamental groundfighting principles, WCers would be struggling on the ground.

[canglong]

Would you tell your friend that I am full of it?

Lawrence, just pointing out the possibility of my saying that would be very low so it looked like you were wanting to portraying me a little different than I see myself. I don't think of you as a negative person or the statement as an overwhelmingly negative one really just wanted to bring your attention to the difference of opinion there.

[canglong]

However, principles change depending on the environment. While it is possible to use some WC principles on the ground, groundfighting principles override most WC principles and must be understood first before one can apply WC principles- at least against someone who already understands groundfighting principles.

knifefighter, what principles are you referring to exactly and how do they change?

[lawrenceofidaho]

Lawrence, just pointing out the possibility of my saying that would be very low so it looked like you were wanting to portraying me a little different than I see myself. I don't think of you as a negative person or the statement as an overwhelmingly negative one really just wanted to bring your attention to the difference of opinion there.

Sorry, Tony....

I disagree with some of your views on MA, but you do conduct yourself as a gentleman on this forum, and I respect that.

My point was; wouldn't you want to warn the uninformed / under-informed of something you felt was an overstated claim?

[Jeff Bussey]

Most WCK theory is BS.

snip snip

as we grow through playing the game (fighting), our exerience replaces theory.
Expert players (fighters) are guided by experience (they know what works, when it works, etc. from having done it over and over). So does it really matter what your theory is? Not really. It's going to be replaced anyway.


Terence

Hey Terence,
Been awhile. I always enjoy your posts.

I snipped out parts of your post just to save space. I'm curious as to what part of the wck theory you think is BS.

I really haven't been to many schools so I don't know how they teach, but the theories that I've been taught seem to be fine.

I agree with what you said about experience and how it weighs more than theory. I think that's the case as well. I think where I differ is that your experience then becomes your theory.

For most people to really understand wing chun, they have to be able to pass it on, they may never have their own school, but they should be able to pass it on. At least that's how I see it. If you can't explain it, then I think you don't understand it.
The reason why I'm saying this is that theory does matter, so you can pass it on.

Jeff