Are you kidding, Phil?! :eek:
This guy won’t even post a photo of himself… 
My Sifu learnt Chi Gerk from his teacher Sifu Lok and had pointers from GM ip about it so dont know where peeps saying it came later got that info from but my Sifu was actually there so…
As for its effectiveness, well thats up for debate…but IMO balanced with good old fashioned sparring i have found it quite usefull for balance and timing with regard to checking and recieving kicks and immediatly following up with my own kicks and punches.
And i sparr with TKB’s often. (hobbiests not pros though).
As for the b i t c h a s s n e s s of people who are old men compared to me…act your fricken age. Im a 29 yr old PUNK and still am more mature than most by the nature of some of the posts here LOL.
Stop taking yourself so seriously for crying out loud, some people dont have jobs cant pay the rent / mortgages and your B i t c h i n about BS on your expensive interweb.
CRAZY ! :mad:
DREW
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;940795]
Now suppose that the guy Keith was working with was at least as tall as Keith (if not taller)…do you think that Keith would have been able to get so deep into the man’s space on the jab that Keith decided to go in on?
Just like that?
I don’t think so.
[/QUOTE]
Me neither.
It all sounds great in theory but as shown in your kickboxer vs WC guy clip, it’s very one dimensional to have only short range skills. The short range skills are more important but the other guy is going to kick all day if he sees you can’t deal with kicks.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;940901]Terence, I used a Chinese term since we do a Chinese martial art. But I understood the concept of honor from the Corps. In the Corps if you had a disagreement with someone you would tell them to their face and go from there. Trash talkers were ostracized. It has nothing to do with him being my Sifu. Wm. Cheung was there for me in some personal issues not related to kung fu. If you and I were close I’d speak on your behalf as well if you weren’t there to speak for yourself.
[/QUOTE]
We can do a chinese martial art but that doesn’t mean we should adopt silly cultural artifices from archaic, fuedal (and caste) societies.
This has nothing to do with “honor”. If someone – anyone – says X is true and he’s wrong, pointing that out isn’t dishonorable. I pointed out that Cheung’s words only showed he was ignorant of the lessons of chi gerk. And, not only that, his fight with Boztepe demonstrates that ignorance. Why do you believe that to criticize Cheung has to do with “honor”?
I don’t know about you, Phil, but I can be friends with someone, even really close, and still say that they were wrong or are wrong or that I don’t agree with them. Robert and I are good friends. He knows I don’t agree with him on many things. I’ve told him personally, I’ve disagreed with him on this forum. This is what adults do, and what equals do. Only when you idolize people or hero-worship them and put them on pedestals do you get to the point where nothing can be said against them and there can be no disagreement with them. And where to do so is “fighting words.”
That sort of mentality isn’t concerned with truth. And terms like “mo duk” and “honor” are only used to try to get people to not point out that the emperor has no clothes.
What separates you and me is that I never write anything online that I wouldn’t say to some one’s face 
That’s not what separates us. Anything I would write I would say to their face. But you’re correct that we do have very different attitudes toward some things.
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;940775]***NOW HERE’S a good example of how to take the opponent’s space away with pak sao/cheun sao - in a real fighting/sparring application.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbGfWIDFuA&feature=related[/QUOTE]I couldn’t see any real sparring or fighting on that clip.
Keith says, ‘Nobody throws just one, right?’ and follows it with ‘Where’s the boxer?’… then gets the boxer to come out with… wait for it… one jab! And one that stops almost exactly halfway to his head. Dunno, but when I was taught to jab I was taught to jab something.
But he still manages to make it outside the jab with a cheun sao… so he’s getting outside a full speed jab and with his right wrist/hand controlling the other guy’s right elbow? Hate to say it, but without the speed of Superman, that’s pure fantasy. That’s your idea of taking the space? If he’s in proper jab range, eats one, and gets in with his elbow covering/striking/smothering above his elbow, he might just make it on that side. Otherwise and standard pak/slipping the jab is all you need.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;940904]Actually Duncan Leung told me of the times when William Cheung would fight for the Chinese people when some Aussie guys would start trouble. He even writes about that in his book. I even have an Aussie news paper article with still pics of him fighting a guy in Australia. My point is that unlike you are saying he has had street fights as an adult. I’ve even seen people try to sneak him during seminars. Not too many WC Sifu have had actual fight experience. But I’m wasting my time with you. I’d really love to see you do something on video. Even if it’s just to explain something. I doubt that’ll ever happen though.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are wasting your time with me because you keep wanting to tell me stories of how good Cheung is. And you don’t apparently even realize how really poor your “evidence” and examples are. Sneak up on him in seminars? Citing Duncan Leung? Don’t you realize how lame that is? When people need to use poor evidence it means they don’t have any good evidence.
Yes, I agree with you that not many WCK sifu have even limited fighting experience. I grant you that Cheung has had limited fighting experience.
Look at this objectively:
Regardless of who you are and what your fighting art, your fighting skill (the ability to use your art in fighitng) comes only from quality sparring/fighting. Everything else is prep work. The “quality” of your sparring/fighting is the level (skill/attributes) of your opposition. This is why they say that you are only as good as your sparring partners.
You can see this for yourself in every combative art (boxing, wrestling, BJJ, MT, etc.). So, your fighting skill is directly proportional to the amount of quality sparring time you’ve put in. And to maintain those skills, you need to keep doing it.
That’s the work you must do to develop significant fighting skills. And really solid fighting skill doesn’t come from a few or even a few dozen fights – it comes from hundreds of hours of quality sparring/fighting.
Once you appreciate this, you can then ask yourself: has so-and-so put in that amount of quality sparring/fighting? Weboth know that Cheung hasn’t done that work.
The other thing is that if you do put in that work, you will recognize the nonsense (a corollary: it is difficult to recognize the nonsense if you haven’t put in the work). Things like pressure point striking, hitting with the fingers, the hopping entry technique, etc. you’ll know to be nonsense. And you’ll find it very hard to take anyone as having a realistic grasp of fighting who promotes these ideas. Is it any wonder that MMA people, fighters, etc. look at WCK as silly?
[QUOTE=Mr Punch;940992]I couldn’t see any real sparring or fighting on that clip.
Keith says, ‘Nobody throws just one, right?’ and follows it with ‘Where’s the boxer?’… then gets the boxer to come out with… wait for it… one jab! And one that stops almost exactly halfway to his head. Dunno, but when I was taught to jab I was taught to jab something.
But he still manages to make it outside the jab with a cheun sao… so he’s getting outside a full speed jab and with his right wrist/hand controlling the other guy’s right elbow? Hate to say it, but without the speed of Superman, that’s pure fantasy. That’s your idea of taking the space? If he’s in proper jab range, eats one, and gets in with his elbow covering/striking/smothering above his elbow, he might just make it on that side. Otherwise and standard pak/slipping the jab is all you need.[/QUOTE]
Very good post.
As I said on another thread – the TCMAists, including WCK people, go about things ass-backward. Don’t tell us how it should work, and then demo it in an unrealistic way. First, show it working in fighting. Then, you can explain it and teach it.
There’s a very good reason we don’t see that: because, as you’ve indicated, most of this stuff is pure fantasy. And, they never have pulled it off.
I really don’t care about the personal attacks and other BS, BUT…
That is NOT a jab, he barely throws it out
and
if you are supposed to be learning how to fight a boxer, why take a soutpaw stance and throw a right jab when 95% of boxers are orthodox and throw LEFT jabs 
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;940999]if you are supposed to be learning how to fight a boxer, why take a soutpaw stance and throw a right jab when 95% of boxers are orthodox and throw LEFT jabs [/QUOTE]
And show how this differs from and is at least equal to a common boxer’s response in this scenario - to cover and jab your way around to the flanking side, which protects the target from a fast moving jab and offers an offensive cover to the movement not leaving you open to the cross.
“if you are supposed to be learning how to fight a boxer, why take a southpaw stance and throw a right jab when 95% of boxers are orthodox and throw LEFT jabs.”
***FIRST OF ALL, Keith is not trying to fight like a boxer. Secondly, in TWC (Traditional Wing Chun) a big part of the strategy is to fight from the parallel position to where your opponent starts from, ie.- so if he has a right lead, you take a left lead…if he has a left lead, you take a right lead…
and what you saw in the clip is exactly the reason why:
you might be able to get to the outside of his lead leg and have both your arms to the outside of his lead arm…thereby giving you a momentary two-on-one advantage since his rear arm and leg have now been blocked out.
It won’t last long, but perhaps long enough to do some damage.
I think you missed my point. Sure, Mazza isn’t trying to be a boxer. But his “opponent” is supposed to be “playing a boxer” yet isn’t throwing a jab correctly and isn’t taking the stance 95% of boxers take and is throwing a jab with the right which 95% of boxers do not throw
Want to follow up on this…
…response I gave to Dave Ross (lkfmdc)…btw, what do those letters stand for, anyway?
What I do personally at this point in time in standup is a mix of boxing and wing chun, and therefore I don’t always start form the parallel position, although I do look upon it (and the TWC strategy alluded to in my previous post) as a big tool in my toolbox.
Dave,
Think carefully about what I said in post#69…and then you might understand that…
If the guy had assumed the more conventional left hand/left leg lead boxing position - then Keith would have started from a right hand/right leg lead.
But since the camera man was where he was…the smaller guy assumed the right hand lead - since he knew what it was that Keith wanted to demonstrate: fighting from the parallel position in order to possibly obtain the two-on-one advantage.
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;940795]***THANKS for this post, because it provides an opportunity to examine in detail when it’s crucial, imo, to use some boxing, and when it’s not.
First of all, go back and take a look at Keith against the second guy in the vid. Notice the serious difference in reach, due to the size discrepancy between the two men.
Assuming that you’re good with the pak/chuen move, and you understand the timing, and so forth - it’s really not that difficult to do what Keith did when the arm reach (and of course, the height advantage) is what it is. (It also doesn’t hurt that Keith outweighed the guy by about 80 lbs…LOL).
Now suppose that the guy Keith was working with was at least as tall as Keith (if not taller)…do you think that Keith would have been able to get so deep into the man’s space on the jab that Keith decided to go in on?
Just like that? I don’t think so.
Not I’m not taking anything away from Keith’s skills or from the whole concept behind the pak/chuen…but my point is that against a bigger man than seen in the vid I believe a longer range delivery system would be needed to get that deep into the man’s space - and do it without eating punches and kicks on the way in.[/QUOTE]
I hear what you are saying, and I agree size, strength and reach do make things easier to accomplish. But, I don’t think that means things wouldn’t work when match up with the same size guy, or if things were reversed even (keith punching the ‘boxer’). And this is regardless the ‘technique’ one is using to bridge with. (but I agree the smaller guy would have to be more on his game)
From my experience, it really boils down to correct structure, timing, positioning, energy and leverage. These things can go a long way to neutralizing an attacker’s advantages, whether it’s size, speed reach or power. I don’t agree with the notion that if the guy is your same size you can’t use the same tools you would against the smaller guy. It won’t be as much of a cake walk, but I don’t see one would have to go with trading punches and boxing a boxer just because the size changed. Actually, the thought would be the opposite in my opinion. Keith would have and easier time with that guy if he boxed him because keith is bigger and stronger. But the same goes for his WC identity
AS far as how much Keith penetrated: Yeah, I agree with those here that say that wasn’t really a commited punch. And, it was just a demo. But, from my experience, things can sometimes work easier if the punch is more committed. Keith would be able to get in ‘as deep’ even easier if the boxer commited to actually trying to strike him - the boxer would be covering more of this distance and Keith would have to use less footwork.
Regardless of the vid, I think saying you have to box a boxer because of some physical differences or similarities goes against WC principals. You set up good structure, if a brisge is found you neutralize it, then you capatalize by setting up a superior position and control of your opponent. This is harder to do if matching jab for jab. Not saying it doesn’t work, and I love a good boxing match 
I just have found WC gives us much more tools with which to safely bridge and get inside and control our opponent than I saw in boxing.
“I hear what you are saying, and I agree size, strength and reach do make things easier to accomplish. But, I don’t think that means things wouldn’t work when matched up with the same size guy, or if things were reversed even”…(JP)
***THIS is where I disagree. When you’re using matched leads (ie.- the “parallel” position)…and your opponent is at least as big as you - and possibly bigger and with a longer reach than you - and possibly even stronger than you because maybe he’s 30 lbs. heavier…
and he knows how to use the jab, how to hook off the jab, how to hold his arms back and invites you in only to hook around your lead, how to use a very stiff lead (and multiple leads)…
then what this can become is in violation of another wing chun principle: don’t fight force with force - and especially if the opponent has superior force. Then you are making a very big strategic mistake by putting your main attacking weapons on the same line he’s using - and perhaps a line that he’s now easily dominating, for the reasons I just gave.
So then you may have to go to “cross” position - instead of the “parallel” position, imo. And come in on a different line with your main (ie-lead side) weaponry.
…
“From my experience, it really boils down to correct structure, timing, positioning, energy and leverage. These things can go a long way to neutralizing an attacker’s advantages, whether it’s size, speed reach or power.” (JP)
***AGAIN, it’s not a question of having the correct structure, timing, energy, and leverage. But it is a matter of POSITION. And while it is true that these things can go a long way toward neutralizing a bigger opponent’s advantages - there is a point of diminishing returns, ie.- you’re up against a bigger guy with some serious boxing/kickboxing skills.
…
“I don’t agree with the notion that if the guy is your same size you can’t use the same tools you would against the smaller guy.”(JP)
***IT DEPENDS upon his skills as a boxer, when up against the guy your size. But is quite evident if you’re up against a bigger man with skills - because you’re now limiting yourself to an infight strategy against a skilled man with a longer reach and using longer range striking/kicking techniques and strategies.
…
“It won’t be as much of a cake walk, but I don’t see one would have to go with trading punches and boxing a boxer just because the size changed.” (JP)
***I DON’T ADVOCATE using boxing to be a “boxer”. I advocate using boxing to get to wing chun range and then use wing chun predominantly once in that range. (Unless of course the opportunity is right there to take him out with a big rear cross of your own, for example.)
…
“Actually, the thought would be the opposite in my opinion. Keith would have an easier time with that guy if he boxed him because keith is bigger and stronger.” (JP)
***TRUE.
…
"But the same goes for his WC identity. (JP)
***FALSE. Keith goes 5’11" and weighs about 235-240. But if his opponent has the skills I’m talking about and also is that size - and especially if he’s bigger (how about 6’ 3" /260)…then Keith has a built in reach problem because he’s only using the shorter range wing chun striking strategy/technique.
…
“AS far as how much Keith penetrated: Yeah, I agree with those here that say that wasn’t really a commited punch. And, it was just a demo. But, from my experience, things can sometimes work easier if the punch is more committed.” (JP)
***TRUE, but let’s put this on hold for a second and go to what you said next…
…
“Keith would be able to get in ‘as deep’ even easier if the boxer commited to actually trying to strike him - the boxer would be covering more of this distance and Keith would have to use less footwork.” (JP)
***AND THIS is where I have to go back to where I started in this post:
"and (if) he knows how to use the jab, how to hook off the jab, how to hold his arms back and invites you in only to hook around your lead, how to use a very stiff lead (and multiple leads)…
AND THEN I’DD ADD THIS..
and he knows when to throw the rear cross, or the uppercut from either hand - and he doesn’t just throw “commited strikes” without the proper setups, footwork, distancing, head movement, etc… then the opportunity to use a pak chuen against his lead may never even happen…and in fact, any close quarter wing chun strategy/techniques may not work well without fighting your way in first using longer range punching and kicking technique.
…
“Regardless of the vid, I think saying you have to box a boxer because of some physical differences or similarities goes against WC principals. You set up good structure, if a bridge is found you neutralize it, then you capitalize by setting up a superior position and control of your opponent. This is harder to do if matching jab for jab. Not saying it doesn’t work, and I love a good boxing match .
I just have found WC gives us much more tools with which to safely bridge and get inside and control our opponent than I saw in boxing.” (JP)
***PLEASE UNDERSTAND that this is not just an endorsement of boxing, per se…it’s an endorsement of using some boxing (and kickboxing) technique to get close enough to hit, to bridge, bridge & hit, and to use all the wing chun weaponry, as the fight dictates.
“***PLEASE UNDERSTAND that this is not just an endorsement of boxing, per se…it’s an endorsement of using some boxing (and kickboxing) technique to get close enough to hit, to bridge, bridge & hit, and to use all the wing chun weaponry, as the fight dictates.” (Victor Parlati)
…
And at this point I want to, no…not crosstrain…but cross explain 
…my remarks on this thread and some of what I was getting at on the “Why Do Wing Chun Stylists Cite Bruce Lee” thread.
Granted, Bruce Lee’s overall knowledge of wing chun was limited (which is not to say that by the end of his life he wasn’t extremely good at being able to apply the wing chun he did know)…but his ideas about using the 5 angles of attack, ie.- various combinations and ways to apply long (and mid) range punching, kicking, bridging, footwork, deception, etc…
to get to what he called the “trapping” range…(what I’m now calling the wing chun close quarter infight range)…
and of course his overall endorsement of crosstraining so that virtually anything could happen - including clinch and ground work…
makes much more sense to me than simply trying to stick to the wing chun “game plan” no matter what; or by trying to make the case that wing chun can indeed fight very efficiently in all ranges; and against all sizes of opponents regardless of what type of fight they’re fighting, and no matter what styles they are using.
Louie, the guy throwing the jab boxed Golden Gloves. And along with his WC training he trains with Prince Badi and his trainer. Usually when people come to the school to challenge we send little Louie to them. It could be embarrasing to some people to get KTFO by a small guy. I’m not sure of the percentage of Orthodox boxers vs South Paws but South Paws do exist so we train to fight against both.
No, it wasn’t sparring or fighting. It was a “demo” to show people how to train the technique. Usually in a demo you’re not trying to knock your partner’s head off. Also you don’t need the speed of Superman to pull off that pak cheun. I know many people who can pull it off against a super fast jab including me. If anyone would like to put some money on it I’d be willing to show them. I’m in Chinatown every Sat.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940988] . . . I pointed out that Cheung’s words only showed he was ignorant of the lessons of chi gerk. And, not only that, his fight with Boztepe demonstrates that ignorance. Why do you believe that to criticize Cheung has to do with “honor”?[/QUOTE]
Criticizing is one thing. The way you criticize is another thing. With regards to the honor thing I guess you’ll never see my point of view and I know why. But that’s another thing.
You must have missed the part where I said that I don’t worship or idolize anyone. It’s against my religious beliefs. Though there are no clips of me fighting I do have some of me explaining how I do things. Until I see something from you I’ll just presume that you are a keyboard warrior that spouts his opinions online with no basis. Of course I don’t expect you to care what I think but that’s what I think.
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;941166]
And at this point I want to, no…not crosstrain…but cross explain 
…my remarks on this thread and some of what I was getting at on the “Why Do Wing Chun Stylists Cite Bruce Lee” thread.
Granted, Bruce Lee’s overall knowledge of wing chun was limited (which is not to say that by the end of his life he wasn’t extremely good at being able to apply the wing chun he did know)…but his ideas about using the 5 angles of attack, ie.- various combinations and ways to apply long (and mid) range punching, kicking, bridging, footwork, deception, etc…
to get to what he called the “trapping” range…(what I’m now calling the wing chun close quarter infight range)…
and of course his overall endorsement of crosstraining so that virtually anything could happen - including clinch and ground work…
makes much more sense to me than simply trying to stick to the wing chun “game plan” no matter what; or by trying to make the case that wing chun can indeed fight very efficiently in all ranges; and against all sizes of opponents regardless of what type of fight they’re fighting, and no matter what styles they are using.[/QUOTE]
Vic, Thanks for the replies. I read your earlier post, but I think this one makes more sense to reply too.
I don’t agree that there is such thing as a ‘WC game plan’ or ‘wing chun close quarter range’ (or, to be fair, it’s the only place WC principals/concepts apply). I think it’s as simple as one either understands and operates under WCK concepts and principals or they don’t (to varying degrees of course!).
To bring bruce up here, only complicates things. Even as you said, his understanding of WC wasn’t as deep as one would hope. So of course it makes sense for him to look at other methods to fight with! (not saying corss training is bad, just not sure it’s necessary for bridging the gap from long range). Are you saying your understanding of WCK is the same as his? 
I think most here would agree that to fight with WCK, you should have a very good understanding of the principals and concepts (both mind and body). I don’t feel these dissapear if we are not in trapping range. If someone advocates throwing jabs, crosses, probing kicks, etc from the outside to try to work our way in, that IMO turns into lucky fighting. You are giving up any advantage WCK has to offer and giving your opponent more chance to also get luck when you give up your identity. Further, you are now matching speed and skill of say, boxing, against your opponent. If your opponent is more skilled in boxing, or quicker than you, you are going to have a harder time - the opposite of what you said earlier.
Way I see it,
CL theory still applies at a longer range.
Certain bridging still applies and works.
Gate theroies apply.
Facing theories applies.
Positioning as well.
I don’t agree that we have to go to a 3 gate type stance with long/short reach problems in our hands just because we are outside of trapping range. If anyting, Bai Jong still exists right?
Size and skill of your opponent makes a difference regardless what ‘style’ you are fighting with. That’s a no brainer. But I don’t buy into the idea that if your opponent is bigger or more skilled that WCK can’t work or you need something else. My experience tells me otherwise. WCK is what give me the edge in this case! I’m not going to try to match speed and strength with a younger faster bigger opponent like I did when boxing. Doesn’t make sense.
** Side note:
I’ve seen vids of Phil, Keith and Rahsun on youtube. They train the same lineage of WCK you do. I haven’t seen one case where they boxed or kickboxed thier way into what you might call the WC close quarter range. To me, it seems they stick to the concepts/principals of TWC WCK (of course, they could answer better than me since I’m not a practitioner of the system). Even some older vids of William Cheung against the boxer is the same.
Now, this isn’t meant as a slight against you by any means, but could it be you just prefer to jab your way in rather than it being necessity? If so, that’s cool. Or you might have missed somet things in your training (again, not a slight against you.) Curious if they feel the same way you do on this subject.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion!
Jonathan
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;941423]Criticizing is one thing. The was you criticize is another thing.
[/QUOTE]
I admit, I criticized Cheung with disdain. Frankly, I think that video clip of Cheung talking about chi gerk just about sums Cheung up.
With regards to the honor thing I guess you’ll never see my point of view and I know why. But that’s another thing.
I don’t think you know why.
You must have missed the part where I said that I don’t worship or idolize anyone. It’s against my religious beliefs.
Actions speak louder than words.
Though there are no clips of me fighting I do have some of me explaining how I do things. Until I see something from you I’ll just presume that you are a keyboard warrior that spouts his opinions online with no basis. Of course I don’t expect you to care what I think but that’s what I think.
Phil, I don’t care if a person puts of video clips of themselves or their students. People are free to do what they like. And lots of people don’t put up clips of themselves or their studentss. I just find it interesting that the persons that do put up clips, they never put up sparring clips - particularly any sparring against competent non-WCK fighters. We see forms, drills, demos, explanations, etc., everything except the “final product.” Do you think that I’m the only guy in the world to see this pattern? That’s partly why WCK people are laughed at by most fighters.