No, thank you once again for proving my point.
Just another in an endless series of posts that serve no other purpose than to try and knock someone else down…(Verbally, of course. Since no other options in this regard exist for you).
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;941976]No, thank you once again for proving my point.
Just another in an endless series of posts that serve no other purpose than to try and knock someone else down…(Verbally, of course. Since no other options in this regard exist for you).[/QUOTE]
Oh, are we continuing this? Great. Let’s see: now you accuse me of “knocking someone else down”? Who would that be – you and the HFY boys posts are directly above mine insulting me (and I’m “knocking” people down – ahh, the irony) and that’s who I was responding to. Was there someone else you thought I referrred to? But, I forget, I shouldn’t really expect you to make those sorts of challenging connections, should I?
Let me guess your response: you will call me more bad names. Not original, but we both know that’s essentially the limit of your intellectual and verbal ability. Kinda like your stuck in the 7th grade. Did you ever earn the GED? 
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;941900][B]
Do you think that it’s an accident that this guy doesn’t even want people to know what he looks like? Forget any chance of his ever posting a clip of himself actually “doing something” connected with martial arts…but he has made sure that he’s completely unrecognizable, ie.- to my knowledge not one photograph of Terence Niehoff has ever made it’s way onto the internet.
Here’s a for instance. If you google his name, this is one of the things that come up:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55064
[/QUOTE]
Vic,
I agree with most everything you’ve said regarding T. But I think you’re wrong here. Sure, we all know he’s not going to post a video, but I think there’s a picture of him. (how exciting is a video of a guy warming the bench going to be anyway?)
Not that it really matters, but I think this article and picture about a lawyer defending drug addicts and murderers is him:
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2002-10-23/news/for-the-defense/1
Yup, that’s me.
Victor wonders why no photos of me have hit the internet. Well, for the simple reason that I don’t see a reason to post photos or videos of myself on the internet. In fact, I wonder why most (99.9%) of people do post videos of themselves on the internet. I think it’s silly. Although I can see a few exceptions, like if you are selling something. I don’t go around with a camera during my workouts or record myself doing forms or want to put up instructional clips (personally I think WCK is sensitivity-based so you can’t really show it). You don’t see Robert putting up clips, Dave or Dzu putting up clips, etc. Alan does it because he is marketing a product.
I leave clips to people like Victor. Bullshido loves people like Victor andtheir clips.
Victor wonders why no photos of me have hit the internet.
You don’t want it, Vic. By all accounts he’s an ugly b@st@rd.
Again, the hypocrisy. He credits Robert Chu with virtue because he doesn’t do videos…(the point being that the “publicity” of doing videos and getting your face in front of the camera betrays some sort of a “problem” with your character) - but then says it’s okay for Alan Orr to do it because with Alan it’s about making money. (As if Alan doesn’t also enjoy the fact that he’s in front of a camera when trying to make money with his product).
Not that I’m knocking either Robert or Alan, because I’m not doing that at all. I’ve seen a bunch of Alan’s vids, and there’s some good stuff there. I dont buy into all of what he’s teaching, but there’s some good stuff there.
No, this is about Terence Niehoff.
It’s okay for his “side” to do certain things (Niehoff spent some time learning from Robert, and Alan is also a student of Robert)…but those very same things betray some sort of character flaw if other people do it.
Again: THE MAN SPECIALIZES IN HALF TRUTHS.
Which always means that the other half is false.
The same guy who tries to point out what a “basically” good guy so-and-so is, and how sweet his family is, and what a tough break life has given him…
and therefore society should ignore (ie.- not punish, or restrain with prison sentences) - these very same people for committing the most horrific of murders.
So we want you to see and acknowledge the Good in so-and-so…and don’t look at the Bad. Just judge him by half the story (and I use the word “half” with lots of generosity).
So in other words, it’s not really important to Terence Niehoff if the whole truth (ie.- all the facts are carefully examined and weighed, thereby letting just and logical conclusions fall where they may)…
and the only thing that’s important is that HE gets people to believe what he wants them to believe - so that his “side” prevails.
Does this modus operandi sound familiar?
Yeah, let’s rest this case. 
Trying to get back on topic…
..and away from the publicity seeking one-note-Charlie thread hijackers… :eek: 
what do you guys think of this:
Now if you believe…
as I do, that one of the biggest problems the wing chun guy had in that clip stemmed from him trying to use a short range arsenal of weapons (and strategy) against someone using longer range weaponry…when they are not at close range (and he ate a lot of punches from longer range)…
then look at this vid - which I find very interesting, and the ideas/concepts expressed here move somewhat in the direction that I’ve been following for some 3-4 years now. Not exactly, but a close cousin.
And in this vid…
I would contend that the single biggest reason why the wing chun guy did much better than the wing chun guy in the first vid did…is because he had a much longer reach - so his wing chun infight weaponry and strategy was enough.
Interesting clips! so here’s my concern - does that mean the shorter/smaller guy has no chance with his wing chun? If so,what’s the point of wing chun altogether then - isn’t it supposed to give us small guys a “fighting” chance?
That boxing/wing chun clip is really cool. For me, i find it interesting that he separates boxing from wing chun, whereas wing chun really is boxing. I think over the years, wing chun has gotten lost in its chi-sao and chain punches, where really it is a boxing form - chinese boxing. The idea of short-range/long-range does not exist..you just want to hit, and to get your punch from A to B is where chi-sao comes in. And i don’t mean trapping or sticking, i mean that chi-sao training lets your punch snake through to the target..in a sense (no bong sao, tan sao, etc needed).
“The idea of short-range/long-range does not exist..you just want to hit, and to get your punch from A to B is where where chi-sao comes in. And i don’t mean trapping or sticking, i mean that chi-sao training lets your punch snake through to the target..in a sense (no bong sao, tan sao, etc needed).” (Grasshopper)
***FIRST of all, welcome to the forum. 
But let me tell you why I believe that short-range/long-range does exist. And for now, I’ll just throw basically one thing out there for you to think about in this regard.
Wing Chun requires that your shoulders be pretty much squared up with each other, so that the basic vertical fist straight punch used most often in wing chun can travel along (or very close to) your centerline.
And so that you can always use two arms simultaneously, and extend them to basically the same exact distance in order to block-and-strike with maximum (and near simultaneous) efficiency…
without even having to move (turn) a shoulder very much.
So this maximizes quickness - but at the expense of reach. And requires that you be very close to the opponent to make this strategy work.
Whereas, on the other hand, a boxing position, for example, does not usually have the shoulders squared up to each other, and will therefore allow a longer reach for each individual punch thrown…
also helped by the fact that in boxing you will torque/turn your shoulder much more so than when throwing a punch in wing chun.
And then there’s the footwork, but that’s another matter…
First off - thanks!
I see ur point and its quite valid! So is short range defined by the positioning of the shoulders?
Take, for instance, that ur 6’5 fighting a boxer at a height of 5’5. Ur “short range” is now his long range. And his “long range” is now ur short range.
With the reverse scenario, no matter how u position urself against a really tall opponent, none of ur weapons are long range.
Let’s say a boxer wants to get in with a jab and close with a hook. Is that hook short range? Or long range? Does it still even matter?
Even with that said, who says.a wing xhun guy HAS to keep his shoulder square? Wing chun, imo,(and all arts) should have a functional role - if u can replicate the function of a move while deviating from its boundaries, u r still performing wing chun.
Are there not punches that torque the shoulder in the wing chun curriculum? If u had the opportunity to punch someone at the expense of torqing ur torso/shoulder, would u not take it?
We get trapped, IMO, into the chain punch/trapping mentality cuz that’s what we do (chi sao) and that, in a sense “shortens” our range…
[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;942094]First off - thanks!
I see ur point and its quite valid! So is short range defined by the positioning of the shoulders?
Take, for instance, that ur 6’5 fighting a boxer at a height of 5’5. Ur “short range” is now his long range. And his “long range” is now ur short range.
With the reverse scenario, no matter how u position urself against a really tall opponent, none of ur weapons are long range.
Let’s say a boxer wants to get in with a jab and close with a hook. Is that hook short range? Or long range? Does it still even matter?
Even with that said, who says.a wing xhun guy HAS to keep his shoulder square? Wing chun, imo,(and all arts) should have a functional role - if u can replicate the function of a move while deviating from its boundaries, u r still performing wing chun.
Are there not punches that torque the shoulder in the wing chun curriculum? If u had the opportunity to punch someone at the expense of torqing ur torso/shoulder, would u not take it?
We get trapped, IMO, into the chain punch/trapping mentality cuz that’s what we do (chi sao) and that, in a sense “shortens” our range…[/QUOTE]
***THIS is a good post. Yeah, of course I believe that you should torque the shoulder if it means that your punch will connect - and to some extent you will almost always torgue the shoulders (even when doing “pure” wing chun) - it’s just a matter of how much. And yes, the chain punch/trapping mentality is a very narrow street to work on (literally and figuratively)…
But the devil is always in the details. And I believe it’s possible to use wing chun principles and still use what looks like a boxing position (including horizontally-thrown boxing straight leads and rear crosses)…as well as some boxing-type footwork…to get to a close range…wherein you can pretty much square up the shoulders and do a more “conventional-looking” wing chun.
[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;942060]Interesting clips! so here’s my concern - does that mean the shorter/smaller guy has no chance with his wing chun? [/QUOTE]
Bingo! You are exactly right.
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;942090]
So this maximizes quickness - but at the expense of reach and power. [/QUOTE]
Fixed to add the other parameter that is compromised.
True. Although it is possible to generate some power from the wing chun position - it is clearly not the same amount of power that a punch thrown with more body torque…the kind of torque used when you’re not in a shoulder-squared-up position.
The idea in wing chun is to take up that slack with multiple punches - and to some extent that’s true too.
But the real truth is, imo, you need all of the above. Long range punching (and kicking) power…and short range multiple striking that can have a cumulative effect and perhaps also set up other moves (like knees, elbows, takedowns, etc.)
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;942193]True. Although it is possible to generate some power from the wing chun position - it is clearly not the same amount of power that a punch thrown with more body torque…the kind of torque used when you’re not in a shoulder-squared-up position.
The idea in wing chun is to take up that slack with multiple punches - and to some extent that’s true too.
But the real truth is, imo, you need all of the above. Long range punching (and kicking) power…and short range multiple striking that can have a cumulative effect and perhaps also set up other moves (like knees, elbows, takedowns, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Interesting how your views are changing over the years as you put yourself into more full-contact situations with more kinds of fighters.
Better watch out… pretty soon you’ll be over on the dark side with Terrance and myself!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Yeah, I’ll tell ya, the guy I wanted to make the wing chun vs. boxing vid with (and I believe it will still happen - as he always returns sooner or later)…but anyway…
that guy - along with a few other guys (all of whom are taller than me and with a longer reach) - really have had an influence on my thinking. And needless to say, the fact that we’ve been doing some serious contact sparring (and not just chi sao and light contact sparring)…changes everything.
Hey Victor,
doesn’t the inverted punch in chum kiu utilize the torquing of the waist and shoulder? If it’s in the form, then it’s in the system. If a concept is brought up, then it can be expanded upon and extrapolated, thus being applied to different circumstances, strikes, etc. I am I correct here, or am I misunderstanding the strike, or delving too deep? (is there such a thing?)
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;942197]Ha! Ha! Ha!
Yeah, I’ll tell ya, the guy I wanted to make the wing chun vs. boxing vid with (and I believe it will still happen - as he always returns sooner or later)…but anyway…
that guy - along with a few other guys (all of whom are taller than me and with a longer reach) - really have had an influence on my thinking. And needless to say, the fact that we’ve been doing some serious contact sparring (and not just chi sao and light contact sparring)…changes everything.[/QUOTE]
I can tell you this, the ability to generate enough force to damage and incapacitate with strikes is far more crucial for a smaller/lighter fighter than for a bigger one, for obvious reasons.
I recall Mas Oyama once saying, I would rather get hit by a dozen “slaps” than one punch.
For bigger people that carry more weight in their strikes “naturally”, systems that advocate multiple “machine gun” strikes are a fine fit ( think kenpo), but for those that must generate far more mass/force behind their strikes, well, lets just say that power is at a premium.