Fighters and Non-fighters

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"Ray, tell me how you can measure WCK skill, the ability to fight with the WCK method, if you don't fight? How can someone claim to be good at WCK if they can't "hang" with other good fighters? If performance isn't the standard, please tell me what you would use."
(Terence)

Although Ray's answer to this was hilarious (the tan sau competition)...

he has avoided Terence's question...and his point.

In the final analysis - performance has to be the standard. (fighting/sparring/contact tournaments).

Without some or all of the above - there is no objective evidence that one's wing chun training has been effective. Just hearsay and conjecture.

I avoided the answer because I already gave the answer a long time ago. My model for someone with no fighting background, scared to fight, not in shape, clueless is as follows:

1. Get their body into shape.
2. Teach them the SLT form
3. Teach them Chi sau
4. Do some drills
5. Teach them CK
6. Teach some distance drills
7. Teach a bit of the dummy
8. Incorporate that into the distance drills
9. Train mixed chi sau
10. Train mixed light fighting
Now they feel a little comfortable with fighting.
All along tell them the idea of the whole program, show them videos of fighters of all types.
11. Get some experts in to teach about Thai boxing, grappling, weapons work to expose them to more things.
12. Get some protective equipment and spar a bit, gradually inccreasing the intensity and speed until they are comfortable at each level of intensity.
13. Add in anything from any style into the mix.
14. Now the student can keep doing this, or try competition or just fight harder and harder with people from other styles or diversify.
15. I recommend for the student to go and try something else and if they still want to do Wing Chun later then they are welcome. So some students do that. Some try Escrima, some try mixed martial arts, some try Tai Chi, some try BJJ. The student learns to trust himself and not just listen to me.
16. Some students just stick around, some go and come back, some go and never come back.
17. Many students get married, have jobs, start a family so they either disappear or they come once a week for maintenance mode.

A normal 1 hour class consists of (after the student has a bit of Wing Chun). With longer classes do more of everything.

1. At least the SLT form, 5 minutes (they can do the longer stuff at home)
2. CK and all the other forms just for a warm up.
3. Chi sau: single sticking hands, Lap sau, Rolling hands
4. Various Chi sau drills, or attack and defence or mixed chi sau depending on what the students want to work on and also depends on what they need and who their partner is. Evryone tries to help everyone. Just working on developing a good stance, later a mobile stance, being relaxed, keeping good angles and postures, having crisp sharp and controlled attacks. This takes half the time. Heavy emphasis on stance, position, relaxation and sensitivity.

Have a few minutes break to switch modes from close to far.

5. Hit and kick the bags, pads, in all kinds of ways, moving or not moving to try to develop explosive hits, heavy hits, fast hits, combination his whatever depending on where the student is at.
6. Train distance fighting techniques. How to close against hitters and grappler.
7. Put on some protection and mix it up, either in attack and defense or both trying anythingat the same time. Sometimes train against the shoot, sometimes against hooks and jabs. The intensity depends on the students level. enough to challenge them but not enough to feak them out and turn them off martial arts or to injure them.
8. Work on the dummy.
9. Every once in awhile go very fast and see if the student can relax under pressure.
10. Video some of the fighting occasionally to more clearly see mistakes and in general to see how crappy everyone looks.

Every once in awhile do knife sparring, fool around with other arts, work on the pole or Butterfly knife or whatever.

The time frame to get the student into fighting mode varies very much with the ability of the student, their interest, their age, their physical limitations, their intelligence level, the amount of time they practice, and a host of other factors. Some people fight in 6 months, some in five years and some never.

We don't have any fixed time frame and we don't use too many standard drills. We go random pretty fast but the results aren't as good that way. I have discarded many drills over the years until we have next to none.

We constantly think about all this stuff, try different ways, and learn from the experience of others.

Some students have been bouncers, police officers or correctional officers. Many students had other martial arts before from beginners to advanced levels. They report to me what they found worked or didn't work. I post some of that information on the net. I'm told it is BS and all stories are lies. But that's fine, it's only a chat group.

The real fighters to me are those fighting for a cause, fighting for injustice, fighting for their life when they have Cancer, fighting to support their family, fighting oppression or taking on a wild animal to save a little girl. Fighting to pound someone's head in to get a thrill or get me to a high doesn't interest me. But competitive people need that. I don't look down upon them, it's just a different genetic makeup. I don't look down upon the handicapped and those less abled, I try to help them when I can. None of us are the same. I respect everyone's ideas. We all travel along our own paths and are into the art for different reasons.

I have been in modes where I trained Wing Chun seven days a week but that is definitely bad if you expect to have a family life.

After having seen a few close people suffer from Cancer, bravely fight the pain and die, I don't view the fight for glory as anything important for me. These people provided a model for me of a true fighter. My goal in life is to help who I can and to see my family grow.

The answer: sports skill can be measured if there is a known standard. Fighting a skilled person in many matches can tell you where you are at. But some people just don't feel the need to prove themselves over and over again.

I think a lot depends on what teachers happen to be available in your area. You try to find the best ones. After a certain age, you care less about yourself but just try to point the student in the right direction. In the near future I will try to get a Thai boxing teacher and a submission wrestler to teach my guys something.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Edmund
Then beat kickboxing with the "right" mechanics.

Seen it done. I've walked through my cousin (10+ years kickboxing on and off), I've seen my teacher walk through one of his students (a very good kick boxer), My training partner walked through a thai boxer etc.

Of course skill levels vary between individuals, but then that is equally true of WC, a fact which your blanket generalisations about WC seem to skip over.

Originally posted by Edmund
I hear 3 WSL guys fought in Japan maybe a couple of years ago and each got KOed 1st round.

Which guys? Names? Teacher?

[Frank Exchange]

WRT an earlier post about Aldo Nadi, a more than accomplished competition fencer, and how he stepped off the salle to fight in serveral real duels.

Onlookers at the time were extremely surprised to see the champion displaying little or none of his famous skill once there was a chance of serious injury.

He was nervous, shaky, hesitant, leaning well forward, and his style was totally unlike that he would have used in competition. In short, his sport skills were not particularly applicable to the real duel. He was very very aware of the difference.

Having said that, would I rather face him or someone else in a real duel? However, the point is that sport skills, even at a high level, do not automatically or necessarily transfer across.

For what its worth.

Taken from "The Secret History Of The Sword", I will try to find the reference if anyone is interested.

[kj]

Ray, thank you for sharing your sincere, balanced and mature perspective.

Originally posted by YongChun
The real fighters to me are those fighting for a cause, fighting for injustice, fighting for their life when they have Cancer, fighting to support their family, fighting oppression or taking on a wild animal to save a little girl. Fighting to pound someone's head in to get a thrill or get me to a high doesn't interest me. But competitive people need that. I don't look down upon them, it's just a different genetic makeup. I don't look down upon the handicapped and those less abled, I try to help them when I can. None of us are the same. I respect everyone's ideas. We all travel along our own paths and are into the art for different reasons.
.
.
.
After having seen a few close people suffer from Cancer, bravely fight the pain and die, I don't view the fight for glory as anything important for me. These people provided a model for me of a true fighter. My goal in life is to help who I can and to see my family grow.

Amen.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Frank Exchange
However, the point is that sport skills, even at a high level, do not automatically or necessarily transfer across.

Frank X,

That's a very Interesting piece of informantion. It really illustrates how physical skill can be compromised by the psyche.

Thanks,

[t_niehoff]

Frank Exchange wrote:

WRT an earlier post about Aldo Nadi, a more than accomplished competition fencer, and how he stepped off the salle to fight in serveral real duels.

Onlookers at the time were extremely surprised to see the champion displaying little or none of his famous skill once there was a chance of serious injury.

He was nervous, shaky, hesitant, leaning well forward, and his style was totally unlike that he would have used in competition. In short, his sport skills were not particularly applicable to the real duel. He was very very aware of the difference.

Having said that, would I rather face him or someone else in a real duel? However, the point is that sport skills, even at a high level, do not automatically or necessarily transfer across.

For what its worth.

Taken from "The Secret History Of The Sword", I will try to find the reference if anyone is interested.

**Good, thoughtful post (and a good suggested read, btw). One thing that nonfighters often point out in defense of their "training program" is that sport or challenge fighting or fighting as part of one's training isn't "real fighting" (an assault on the 'street"). And this account of course illustrates that. What's interesting, however, is that no one that does sport or challenge fighting or fighting as part of their training would say that it was; Nadi wouldn't say competitive fencing is the same as fighting a duel. But the question remains of how do we obtain and increase our **base fighting skills** (which should serve us regardless of the venue) to best prepare us to fight, even on the street? The only possible answer is to develop those base skills by fighting, at at as high an intensity level as possible (you don't need to always train there, but regularly).

**Intensity is one of the major characteristics of fighting, and relates to the level of the opponent's attributes, the level of the opponent's skill, and the level of risk involved. IOWs, the greater the risk, the greater the intensity (walking a tightrope from 1 meter off the ground isn't intense; walking the same tightrope 100 meters off the ground is very intense -- the latter is a much greater challenge but all that changed was the level of risk). Obviously we can't in our training have levels of risk that involve death or serious physical injury; we can't train at that level of intensity. So the best that we can do is train at a level of intensity as high as we possibly can (full attributes, against highly skilled opponents, with some acceptable risks of injury) to become accustomed to dealing with that environment.

**So, sure Nadi had problems dealing with the greater level of intensity -- but just imagine the trouble he would have had if he didn't have the skills at the level (including intensity level) he obtained by competitive fencing. Suppose he never bouted but only took "lessons" and did drills -- he would have had nothing. Instead, he won his duels; he was better prepared than his competition -- his training served him.

Regards,

Terence

[t_niehoff]

YongChun wrote:

I avoided the answer because I already gave the answer a long time ago.

**You still haven't answered my question: how can you measure progress except through performance?

My model for someone with no fighting background, scared to fight, not in shape, clueless is as follows:

**You gave your "training model" but that doesn't touch on how you measure progress -- a training "progression" doesn't mean one's performance fighting skills are increased. For example, your first point is to get the person in shape. How do you measure the whether they are in shape for WCK fighting, know what areas need work, judge the progress of their training, etc. except through fighting? The "attributes" we use in fighting are activity specific. I've seen guys that run 40 minutes a day gas in five minutes doing BJJ. They have good general cardio but not cardio for rolling.


The real fighters to me are those fighting for a cause, fighting for injustice, fighting for their life when they have Cancer, fighting to support their family, fighting oppression or taking on a wild animal to save a little girl. Fighting to pound someone's head in to get a thrill or get me to a high doesn't interest me. But competitive people need that. I don't look down upon them, it's just a different genetic makeup. I don't look down upon the handicapped and those less abled, I try to help them when I can. None of us are the same. I respect everyone's ideas. We all travel along our own paths and are into the art for different reasons.

**Let's not drag dealing with life's problems into training discussions. Of course there are genuine life challenges that face us all -- but that doesn't tell us anything about how to be a better boxer. And I think it disingenuous to suggest that folks interested in being good boxers, and discussing what training is necessary to be a good boxer, have a different "genetic makeup" or look down on people. It is a simple matter: if someone wants to increase their fighting performance skill level through any martial art, including WCK, they need to do certain things. The upward spiral of step 1 - learn form/technique, step 2 - drill it, step 3 - fight with it, with each step continually informing the others. Every active marital artist, every fighter that has significantly increased their performance, does that in some way.

**I don't "look down" on the handicapped or less able, but I recognize that they won't be able to do everything that those that aren't handicapped or are more able will. Folks in wheelchairs, 90 year old grandmothers, etc. won't be able to box. That's life. Deal with it. And we can respect everyone's ideas, but that doesn't mean they have validity. Someone may think the world is flat, OK - fine with me if they want to believe it and promote it, but they are just plain wrong. Don't be surprised when someone points that out.

I have been in modes where I trained Wing Chun seven days a week but that is definitely bad if you expect to have a family life.

**You keep coming back to this idea that to increase one's fighting performance they need to train like world-class athletes. They don't. A lot of boxers, BJJists, muay thai practitioners, etc. only train a couple of days a week. But they train properly -- by including fighting as part of their training. Hence they improve. It's easy to measure whether we are increasing our performance.


The answer: sports skill can be measured if there is a known standard. Fighting a skilled person in many matches can tell you where you are at. But some people just don't feel the need to prove themselves over and over again.

**You suggest in some of your posts that you train to fight but do it in a more "slow" approach. The statement above, however, belies that for me. Folks that include fighting as part of their training wouldn't say what you say -- they would not have that perspective. It's not a matter of "proving themselves over and over again"; if you fought as part of your training, you'd know that. That's nonfighter-speak. Just like someone saying "you don't need to keeo getting in the pool to prove yourself" is nonswimmer-speak. Swimmers don't think like that. BJJers don't roll and continue to roll to "prove themselves again and again" but to increase and maintain their skill. Same with boxers or any fighter. A fighter would know that.

Regards,

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

More than anything else, there just seems to be a difference of degree between Terence's and Ray's approach - in terms of timing and emphasis. Terence prefers the time period that students begin sparring to be quicker than Ray prefers - and Terence seems to be saying that the frequency of the sparring/fighting should be more regular than what Ray seems to believe. As to intensity - that's going to depend on the students. I personally prefer to err on the side of caution myself.

All out intensity, imo, should be limited to advanced students only - with plenty of protective gear - and with no hesitation to stop the action when it starts to hit the danger zone...and then restart.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
YongChun wrote:

I avoided the answer because I already gave the answer a long time ago.

**You still haven't answered my question: how can you measure progress except through performance?


Regards,

Terence

After my training model, as I have stated before, you can fight with boxers, BJJ and anyone all day long to find out if you can fight. You can fight on the street, fight at home and fight in a war. Seeing if you can fight is easy. You can discard all the training model, all forms, all chi sau and then just fight, fight, fight. That was in fact my Hung style teacher's model.

If I have a baby I have to wait until he crawls, and then when he walks before he can start to learn to fight. Some students are like babies. Maybe where you are you can start babies off with BJJ before they can walk.

[kj]

Terence, Though you haven't offered anything new, your reponse to Ray was nicely written.

Here are the major and consistent shortcomings I see in your arguments (referring to your argument in the general sense, not any single post):

a) Failure to unequivocally define what constitutes "fighting" or a "fight" (and how that differs from all other "performance" based activities including those that others might call sparring or hard chi sau)

b) Non-validated assumptions of what others do in practice

c) A personal but non-universal premise that WCK equals fighting (I being among those who do not accept this premise, though it's interesting fodder for discussion)

d) Over reliance on implicit ad hominem commentary (e.g., "if you fought as part of your training, you'd know that.")

e) Putting a creative spin on what others have said that wasn't what they said

f) Failure to consider ethics, morality, or larger life context (e.g., "Let's not drag dealing with life's problems into training discussions.") Even a logically valid argument isn't robust until the full picture is taken into account, and where human beings are concerned ethics is never irrelevant.

It also seems that over-reliance on certain models has become somewhat of a liability rather than a help to your arguments. Models can be wonderfully effective illustrative tools. However, they are not conclusive devices. For one thing, they can also be applied in different ways to support different POV's; this has already been demonstrated with the swimming analogy numerous times, and the same can done with the fencing analogy. Additionally, "All models are wrong" (George Box) in that except when a model of a thing is the very thing itself, then at some point use of the model or analogy will break down.

I’m hardly a logician, but that's what it looks like from the peanut gallery anyway. Despite these shortcomings, I often find your assertions interesting and thought provoking. There may be some issues I've missed, but I think addressing these areas would greatly strengthen your argument and conclusion.

Regards,
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

"After my training model, as I have stated before, you can fight with boxers, BJJ and anyone all day long to find out if you can fight. You can fight on the street, fight at home and fight in a war. Seeing if you can fight is easy. You can discard all the training model, all forms, all chi sau and then just fight, fight, fight. That was in fact my Hung style teacher's model."

Your Hung style teacher's model turn you off to sparring/fighting?

If so - why continue to let his excesses influence you - and I think it has continued - because if you go back and reread the above quote without the final sentence...it suggests someone who is clearly dissing the role of sparring/fighting.

[Vajramusti]

Comments on Edmund's post:

Like Ray was saying he would like the classical Wing Chun training methodology to be able to handle the realistic fighters.
I'm curious too. I'd like to see if it's possible.

(( I do think that folks trained properly in wing chun can take care of themselves. I have seen it done, know people who have done
the same and done it myself. But if you fighta good boxer on his terms in the boxing ring-good chance of losing. If you fighta Thai boxer on his terms- the same. Nothing wrong in gaining some experience in playing their game though.
The story on Nadi's(sp?) sporting skills v dueling skills is isntructive. Big difference between pistol/taget shooting matches and combat shooting.
No sarcasm intended.))

[YongChun]

Ok, I changed my fighting program to match the recommendations on this forum.

L: Lady who wants to learn fighting.
T: Instructor of the Terence school.

L:Hello I’m interested to learn some self defense. Do you teach that?

T:No, Ma’am we fight.

L: My brother who’s in the army recommended your school to me. He knows about fighting.

T: Sorry to burst you bubble Ma’am, he knows nothing about fighting. He trains, he doesn’t fight.

L: Well he fought in the Vietnam war.

T: Get off the pot lady, that’s not fighting, that’s war. See the difference Ma’am.

L: Well I guess…

T: We don’t guess Ma’am we fight. Guessing is for wimps.

L: Now I’m confused.

T: That’s ok Ma’am. Most people are confused. The sooner you learn to fight the less confused you’ll be.

L: So can you explain the program? I heard you learn some forms and some drills to start.

T: No Ma’am, you heard wrong. Forms and drills are what non-fighters do. We fight Ma’am. If you want to do forms and drills join the local Ballet school down the street.

L: Which Ballet school do you mean?

T: The Kung Fu school, the Karate school whatever. It’s all Ballet to me.

L: Boy, you really know about fighting.

T: Yes, Ma’am, that’s what we do.

L: So how do I start?

T: You start by fighting Ma’am. Fighters fight.

L: I have some arthritis in my knee and have to be careful with my back.

T: Fighters fight Ma’am. You gonna tell your attacker you got Arthritis in your knee. Get off the pot lady. You want to learn to fight or not.

L: Well yes, but…

T: No buts, Ma’am. Fighters fight. Fighters don’t say but.

L: Isn’t there a progressive program. Are there belts and stuff?

T: No Ma’am, we just fight. The only belt your likely to see is the one the guy on the street will wrap around your neck. See my point Ma’am.

L: You sound pretty tough.

T: No Ma’am, I’m not tough, I just fight. Real men fight.

L: But I’m not a man.

T: The mugger on the street doesn’t care if you’re a woman or a man Ma’am. You want to fight or not?

L: Well I do like to learn some self defense.

T: That’s not the question Ma’am. I said do you want to learn to fight. Pay attention Ma’am. You got to listen to what I say if you want to learn to fight.

L: Well I know your right. My brother used to fight on the street ALL the time.

T: That’s not fighting Ma’am. People who fight on the street don’t know the first thing about fighting.

L: But he won all the time.

T: Luck Ma’am. Real fighters have skill, not luck. You want luck or you want skill. Make up your mind lady.

L: Well skill I guess is good.

T: We don’t guess Ma’am we know it’s good.

L: Well how long until I can fight?

T: We fight right away Ma’am. You’re a fighter or you aren’t. If you aren’t fighting, you’re not learning.

L: Is it safe?

T: You think fighting is safe Ma’am? Fighting is intense. If someone’s not trying to take your head off then your not learning fighting.

L: Isn’t that dangerous?

T: No Ma’am, we wear protection.

L: So you try to take your students head off when he has protection?

T: That’s right Ma’am, you got it.

L: Do I have to spar and enter tournaments to progress? My friend studies Karate and he says he has to enter tournaments.

T: Your friend knows nothing Ma’am. Tournaments are not fighting. Tournaments don’t prepare you for the street. Fighters fight, they don’t enter tournaments.

L: Ok, what do I do now.

T: You try to stop that 200-pound guy rushing at you with a shield.

L: Golly, I could never do that. Isn’t there something I need to know first?

T: No Ma’am, you learn fighting by doing.

L: Well how can you measure my progress?

T: If your not lying on the floor Ma’am, then you’re progressing.

L: Well can I think about your program and get back to you?

T: Fighters don’t think Ma’am they fight.

L: Well Ok, thank you very much for the informative lesson.

T: Your welcome Ma’am.

[t_niehoff]

Victor,

It's not a question of degree or "timing" in the training, it's more fundamental than that. For example, you can't learn the simplest things, like the punch, the basic WCK punch, without fighting. Punching isn't just throwing out your arm or even connecting it to whole body power, although that's a part of it -- it is being able to actually hit someone while fighting and "have it count." Otherwise, you don't have a fighting tool. You can't develop that without trying to hit someone who is actually genuinely resisiting (trying to stop you and trying to hit you back). Punching in chi sao or any drill isn't punching like you would do in a fight (there are lots of other variables that are involved); your "opponent" and you aren't going full-out, which changes all kinds of things a great deal. Folks who don't fight think that they'll develop their punching and then be able to put it into fighting (should the need arise) -- it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way for boxers, bjjers, fencers, etc. The development and the fighting need to go hand-in-hand. You learn a tool, drill the tool (chi sao and san sao), and then put it into fighting. Then you'll find that the fighting informs the "form"/technique and the drill (changes them to suit the individual), which changes one's training to make one's fighting better. This is what produces results. Fighting is the self-correcting mechanism of the fighting arts. It's what permits us to improve. No fighting equals no improvement.

Regards,

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ray:

Comedy skills you definitely have...but can you fight?