[QUOTE=YungChun;1013390]The issue stems from the emphasis on the use of leveraged positions and vectored energy issuing, use of position and breaking all of it down in the opponent so you can attack and control.[/QUOTE]
LOL… That would be more theoretical non-fighter [tm] theorizing for pretty much everything you are attempting to accomplish in any fighting style.
Even non-theoretical fighters have tons of theory and technique to talk about. Go have a look at any MMA forum.
By the by, I do agree that the talk of structure or body structure is somewhat odd, because it really isn’t that complicated of a subject.
[QUOTE=Vankuen;1013395]Even non-theoretical fighters have tons of theory and technique to talk about. Go have a look at any MMA forum.
By the by, I do agree that the talk of structure or body structure is somewhat odd, because it really isn’t that complicated of a subject.[/QUOTE]
So go ahead and lay it all out (VT use of structure in fighting) in a nice paragraph or two… 
(anyone?)
Dude, you gotta trademark that "theoretical non-fighters) thing, its gold, gold I tell you !!!H
HW8 shoudl have trademarked “Authentic TCMA” and he didn’t, don’t make the same mistake !!
I think Dale would be up against Terence if he tried to trademark that term. If T wasn’t the originator, he probably has a strong claim due to frequency of (over)use. And, unlike fighting, lawyering is something T has some experience in.
I saw HW8 as having more claims to “Glorified Kickboxing” and “MMA Knuckleheads”, both of which he is welcome to.
Is it how you stand, your balance, positioning of body parts, what? Is anything like setting you base in bjj or wrestling? And if so doesn’t it change as you or your opponent move?
I don’t think there’s a lot more to it than that IMO. If you’re (forgive the cliches) working in an alive fashion against a resisting opponent, you have little option but to pretty quickly learn how to adjust your posture and the way you move to manage that.
If you spent all day doing forms and prearranged stuff, then you might have the luxury of being able to overcomplicate things.
I do not have to had Muay Thai, Boixing, or BJJ delivery base to make it work, making it a pseudo WCK or JKD. I keep WCK pure - it is about making WCK work.
At least some of your students and grandstudents are studying BJJ. I believe from experience that the BJJ delivery base is enormously superior to “doing WCK on the ground” where groundfighting is concerned.
I’m less concerned with making WCK work or keeping it pure than I am with having an effective defense base, whatever its sources.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1013400]I don’t think there’s a lot more to it than that IMO. If you’re (forgive the cliches) working in an alive fashion against a resisting opponent, you have little option but to pretty quickly learn how to adjust your posture and the way you move to manage that.
[/QUOTE]
There has to be guidance…someone who knows how to lead the way..
If you put scrub off the street up against a BJJ black belt..and have them roll, how long will it take the scrub to:
“quickly learn how to adjust your posture and the way you move to manage that”
Without good coaching?
And despite training (rolling) in an alive fashion?
There has to be guidance…someone who knows how to lead the way..
If you put scrub off the street up against a BJJ black belt..and have them roll, how long will it take the scrub to:
“quickly learn how to adjust your posture and the way you move to manage that”
Without good coaching?
And despite training (rolling) in an alive fashion?
I can’t argue with the need for guidance.
However, guidance and static structure tests without rolling will get you nowhere. And if the teacher never rolls, his guidance would be highly questionable.
IMO you learn more about effective structure in an hour of standup wrestling than you would in a year of static structure testing.
You need feedback. And the feedback you get from practice against a live opponent is worth multiple DVD’s worth of lectures from a Sifu.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1013402]I can’t argue with the need for guidance.
However, guidance and static structure tests without rolling will get you nowhere. And if the teacher never rolls, his guidance would be highly questionable.
IMO you learn more about effective structure in an hour of standup wrestling than you would in a year of static structure testing.
You need feedback. And the feedback you get from practice against a live opponent is worth multiple DVD’s worth of lectures from a Sifu.[/QUOTE]
I was never addressing some kind of static structure.. I don’t see anything in VT as static.. The structure must be alive, structure in motion with dynamic adaptive change as the constant.. 
Oh and who has the lock on the term Fantasy Foo? I like that one…
I was never addressing some kind of static structure.. I don’t see anything in VT as static.. The structure must be alive, structure in motion with dynamic adaptive change as the constant..
I know you weren’t saying that.
I guess my point is that the finer points and deep philosophy of structure we go on and on about only have relevance if you’re working in a (cliche alert) static fashion with dead patterns.
Most people training in alive systems don’t have time for this deep deliberation because they’re too busy doing it rather than meditating on it.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1013404]I know you weren’t saying that.
I guess my point is that the finer points and deep philosophy of structure we go on and on about only have relevance if you’re working in a (cliche alert) static fashion with dead patterns.
Most people training in alive systems don’t have time for this deep deliberation because they’re too busy doing it rather than meditating on it.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know Andrew… The tendency on any board is to hack apart anything and everything having to do with the subject ad infinitum IME.
Also, IMO it’s a valid topic.. If anyone can share any info on VT use of structure that will help out someone’s VT then great…
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1013368]I understand what you’re saying, Robert…but you see, I (and quite a few others) can say the same things about the wing chun we do.
For example, you listed the following, amoungst other things:
***OKAY, so TWC does these very same things with the “body structure” we use.
So the question is not about your tests - but rather it’s about how does the “body structure” you use differ from what TWC does, for example, and how do those differences translate into actual better fighting efficiency?[/QUOTE]
Victor,
Again, I believe you are playing devil’s adviocate, because I cannot believe what you are asking. When you use it in proper range, there is a world of difference over a person who does not have body structure.
You should be able to see immediately in WCK one who has structure vs someone in WCK who has no structure.
Using Kali for example, if some one uses tapi-tapi and just uses an arm to parry the arm, it has no power in comparison to a Pak Sao with full body mechanics and vector force alignment.
If you just use your arm to Lop Da, you will not have any power. The one with body structure will throw his opponent to the ground or throw him at all angles.
Does that not translate into actual better fighting efficiency?
[QUOTE=chusauli;1013407]Victor,
Again, I believe you are playing devil’s adviocate, because I cannot believe what you are asking. When you use it in proper range, there is a world of difference over a person who does not have body structure.
You should be able to see immediately in WCK one who has structure vs someone in WCK who has no structure.
Using Kali for example, if some one uses tapi-tapi and just uses an arm to parry the arm, it has no power in comparison to a Pak Sao with full body mechanics and vector force alignment.
If you just use your arm to Lop Da, you will not have any power. The one with body structure will throw his opponent to the ground or throw him at all angles.
Does that not translate into actual better fighting efficiency?[/QUOTE]
So, basically, you are making a big deal about something that is used as a natural part of pretty much any athletic activity.
Do you think you can hit a baseball or tennis ball by using just your arms? Do you think you can throw a ball by using just your arms? Can a boxer throw a punch by just using his arm? Can a shot putter use just his arm?
The only time you see “just limb” movements is in activities in which power plays an insignificant role.
I’m really not getting why you are making a big deal about something that is a simple, natural part of learning any type of physical activity that requires power.
[QUOTE=Frost;1013388]Same here I’d like to know as well, for an art that is usually advertised as simple and effective its practitioners can sure complicate the most basic things. Structure is taught in most athletic endeavours in the first class and reinforced and tested through practise…weight lifters learn the correct structure for lifting weights in the first few lessons…boxers the same, wrestlers the same …is it reinforced through cues whilst training in the beginning but this doesn’t take long to become second nature…how can people make something so simple so complicated[/QUOTE]
Maybe in your experience this is so. I wrestled in public school, I never heard the term “structure”, rather I learned moves and techniques, stand like this and when he does this you do that, no explaination really as to why we do these things and how the body functions better by doing it that way. I played and taught tennis, got pretty good at it and went to a world class training facility in Florida, I never heard the word “structure” mentioned, all we did was drill the basics, learned some strategy and played against one another.
I agree that WC was generally marketed as easy to learn. Some systems of WC are, as they are tailored to the general public in Mcdojo type schools, I worked and taught at a place for this for years. The majority of the students there (99%) were pure hobbist, never practicing at home nor thinking about it out of class, the remaining 1% excelled 500% better than the others. Over time I learned that WC is far from easy to learn, it is complex and hard to learn, maybe one of the hardest, but once you learn it is easy to exibit and bring forth within your own movement. Whether or not it is effective vs someone hell bent on hurting you is not something anyone here can answer, unless you have a crystal ball:)
The problem comes when we intellecutalize it and try to explain to one another what we are experiencing and learning on the physcial level. Human beings have a natural tendency to complicate whatever subject they come in contact with, finance, nature, politics, religion, whatever.
.So, concerning WC, the basic idea in is to learn a skill set, that begins with a bodily structure that connects the whole body together as a unit, but a unit that is not fixed(static) nor rigid (stiff). Without the structure your actions have no foundation or ability to transfer power or energy into your movements, whether they are offensive or defensive.
I agree there are some esoteric ideas and theory’s about it all. Since WC is pretty specific in it’s application (we are basically infighters), we need to develop certain attributes to make it work for us. If I apply a boxers structure and mechanics but am in or around the clinch range it won’t work, just like WC structure/mechanics don’t work outside the clinch range…yes we can still use the prinicples of the system, but the physical part does not apply there (why use facing concepts on the outside when I need to utilize reach more so..).
Now for us in the beginning we don’t want to clinch, grab, hold on to our opponent, rather we need to learn how to strike, and control thru the striking to KO our opponent from that close range. Sounds easy, but the reality is it isn’t..Yes one can learn MT to function here, but we aren’t talking about MT.
James
[QUOTE=chusauli;1013407]Using Kali for example, if some one uses tapi-tapi and just uses an arm to parry the arm, it has no power in comparison to a Pak Sao with full body mechanics and vector force alignment.[/QUOTE]
BTW, you realize there are a variety of different structures right? And that the more you transition into a power-delivery structure, the more you lose from a defensive structure, right? Any structure always has strengths and weaknesses that are specific to the purposes of that structure.
Theoretical non-fighter POV:)
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1013409]So, basically, you are making a big deal about something that is used as a natural part of pretty much any athletic activity.
Do you think you can hit a baseball or tennis ball by using just your arms? Do you think you can throw a ball by using just your arms? Can a boxer throw a punch by just using his arm? Can a shot putter use just his arm?
The only time you see “just limb” movements is in activities in which power plays an insignificant role.
I’m really not getting why you are making a big deal about something that is a simple, natural part of learning any type of physical activity that requires power.[/QUOTE]
Yes all these sports have “specific” body structures to function at a high level that is, and that is the difference. How many people play golf or tennis but do not function or play at a high level? Tons, mostly due to poor mechanics and not being taught the basics of how to hit the ball correctly, and even if they were taught they just don’t have the ability to function that way.
As a tennis instructor and player I saw tons of people hitting the ball the wrong way, but still being able to get the ball over the net, but when they were matched up with someone with superior ability and skill at hitting the ball they were unsuccessful in dealing with that type of pressure.
For some reason I was a natural at hitting the ball from the baseline, but not so natural at volleying, so guess what I did, I stayed back and did what worked best for me. At a certain level of competition that worked well, at the higher levels not as good as my game had a hole in it.
Gotta run…
James
[QUOTE=sihing;1013411] I wrestled in public school, I never heard the term “structure”, rather I learned moves and techniques, stand like this and when he does this you do that, no explaination really as to why we do these things and how the body functions better by doing it that way. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, functional activities simply teach you what works and kept things simple without a bunch of theoretical postulations. In wrestling, you learn to keep your center of gravity low, slightly on the balls of your feet, back straight, arms in, head up… perfect structure, perfectly simple.
Imagine that.
Does that fact that they didn’t label it “structure” make it somehow different? Of course not.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1013412]BTW, you realize there are a variety of different structures right? And that the more you transition into a power-delivery structure, the more you lose from a defensive structure, right? Any structure always has strengths and weaknesses that are specific to the purposes of that structure.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
[QUOTE=sihing;1013414]Yes all these sports have “specific” body structures to function at a high level that is, and that is the difference. How many people play golf or tennis but do not function or play at a high level? Tons, mostly due to poor mechanics and not being taught the basics of how to hit the ball correctly, and even if they were taught they just don’t have the ability to function that way.
As a tennis instructor and player I saw tons of people hitting the ball the wrong way, but still being able to get the ball over the net, but when they were matched up with someone with superior ability and skill at hitting the ball they were unsuccessful in dealing with that type of pressure.
For some reason I was a natural at hitting the ball from the baseline, but not so natural at volleying, so guess what I did, I stayed back and did what worked best for me. At a certain level of competition that worked well, at the higher levels not as good as my game had a hole in it.
Gotta run…
James[/QUOTE]
And how do you think all of those high level people got to be higher level than the ones with “poor structure”? It sure wasn’t by doing structure tests.
In ba gua and hsing I students are told to do static standing postures, stake standing, for 10 minutes every day and then 20. There are some benefits martially. You do feel more rooted. Once you understand this rooted feeling I believe there is no use wasting time standing there for 20-40 minutes every day. You get the feeling and then you grab a kettle bell and work out with this alignment in mind. That’s ONLY for the case in the MARTIAL part. Static standing has other benefits. I feel calmer, energized, mentally stable, and healthier after static standing. It’s fine if you want to do it as a meditation for the benefits I just listed but don’t kid yourself into thinking that standing there pretending to be an oak tree will give you martial skills.
I also don’t believe in static posture testing. If someone moves in on me and my position sucks causing me to move I’m not going to try and turn into a stone gargoyle. I’m going to turn into a real gargoyle and fly to s better postion where I can beat him or her up. What’s the point in standing there while some dude pushes me and I can’t push back? Of course I’m going to fall!
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1013409]So, basically, you are making a big deal about something that is used as a natural part of pretty much any athletic activity.
Do you think you can hit a baseball or tennis ball by using just your arms? Do you think you can throw a ball by using just your arms? Can a boxer throw a punch by just using his arm? Can a shot putter use just his arm?
The only time you see “just limb” movements is in activities in which power plays an insignificant role.
I’m really not getting why you are making a big deal about something that is a simple, natural part of learning any type of physical activity that requires power.[/QUOTE]
You’re absolutely correct - yet we have a great majority of TCMA who train without power! We call them “Fa Kuen Sou Toi” in Cantonese - “Flowery fists, embroidered legs”. Who do you blame here?
I am not making a big deal out of it - I tell people it should be taught from day one.