Here’s a quote from earlier on this thread by Mr Punch…
“Although Cro-cop has improved a lot over the years, I still think he’s a couple-of-tricks-pony.”
***I THINK THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
He was totally clueless in this fight…as in…having no idea what to do against Gonzaga’s total lack of fear about throwing constant jab/cross combinations while coming in. Cro Cop’s is the typical old-time European boxing style: no real footwork…no hooks off the straight lead…no real defense and counter moves against a head hunter. (such as bobb, weave and hook, ala Joe Frazier, for example). No cross followed by hook or uppercut combos (like Ali).
And without any real opportunity to throw his big roundhouse kick…or to show off his sprawling abilities to neutralize and possibly pound the attacker (since Gonzaga was not clinching or shooting)…
I would not say he s extactly a one trick poney. He did defeat Ikuhisa Minowa by ground and pound. It’s not all punches and kicks. Just most of the time.
People get caught, no big, its not like he is going to just let it pass without addressing his problem areas.
Just saw the video. Gonzaga had an excellent strategy going in.
His consistent movement towards Cro Cop’s right, flanking his lead right leg both nullified Cro Cop’s left leg by elongating the distance it needed to travel and opened up a lane for his straight right. While he really didn’t land solid straight rights, the lane being open allowed him to be on the offensive and forced Cro Cop to close the hole and cover up rather than mounting any offense. The longer distance to target for the left leg left the kick exposed where it was trapped for the single leg takedown. On the ground, Cro Cop has always had a very passive guard. He just defends by head and arm clinching, but has no hip movement to attack or open up escapes. Low ground skills. On the final kick, Cro Cop misjudged the target - he was covering up his ribs where he thought the kick was going so was surprised at a high kick.
So, excellent strategy for Gonzaga capitalizing upon his strengths and his opponent’s weaknesses, and excellent execution imposing his plan in the fight.
Also, Cro Cop looked flat in the fight for whatever reason. Coming off a cold, low energy - whatever. It happens. If he was ‘on’ he might have been able to overcome a strategic disadvantage with sheer attributes.
Since this thread is on wing chun possibilities for Cro Cop, I’ll offer up one possible strategy. Instead of allowing Gonzaga to flank him to his right, he could have cut off the flank by stepping to his right with Gonzaga. That would have closed holes down, and he could have stepped with him until the cage cut him off. That would have forced him back into his left leg, or when the escape space was cut off, there would have no longer been the elongated distance to travel to land the left leg body or head kick. That’s some basic wing chun angle concepts.
[QUOTE=bodhitree;756921]What about Remi Bonjowski, Jerome Lebanner, and Ernesto Hoost? They aren’t top heavyweights. Picking stupid arguments. Shame.[/QUOTE]
Well he’s lost against Hoost every time and never looked that good doing it. That’s more an indication of how good Hoost used to be. Bonjasky was a good win. Lebanner not so much.
Not really trying to pick an argument. Just going over the stats.
[QUOTE=Black Jack II;757053]I would not say he s extactly a one trick poney. He did defeat Ikuhisa Minowa by ground and pound. It’s not all punches and kicks. Just most of the time.
People get caught, no big, its not like he is going to just let it pass without addressing his problem areas.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think he’s one trick either. He’s got a really big left hand as well.
He’s tapped Randleman too.
I think CC wasnt on his game at all, due to Gonz keeping him on the back foot - he pushed the action the whole fight.
Keeping his hands up and not being over sensitive in reaction ‘could’ have certainly helped IMO.
I focus on covering also Hunt1, the only VT action (if you will) i like to give is slightly turning/rotating my forearm as an attack impacts my cover.
This is VT energy deflection 101.
The call about using Guarn Sao for an round kick is interseting IMO - its direct force against force and a sure way to get your arm broke against a heavy kicker… very interesting :rolleyes:
First I may not have been very clear. I dont think of things in the way of use a specific technique against a specific attack. For me covering is a concept. How you go about it changes from situation to situation or moment to moment. There are some good basic covering methods but as long as you are covered it doesnt matter how you do it.
Drills are interesting,I try not to train or teach any drills that use any unrealistic motions or actions. So no reaching or blocking. I dont use a pak punch drill the way most do it for example. It does help with some coordination in the beginning I guess but I dont want anyone to get the idea that you can pak a jab with any kind of reasonable success factor.
I would consider that a fook sau into a jut or gum not a pak sau. Pak would be intercepting with the palm of your hand. Here he is intercepting with the wrist /forearm which is something I use often because it covers and allows interception using the entire hand and forearm area.
oh totally agree Hunt1 - i didnt mean to imply it was the use of pak sao, just a Parry and follow up…
Pak Sao for me is damm near impossible/much less percentage with gloves on, so when i spar with anything over 8oz fingerless im a bit more like how you mention…
Using the forearm etc…
I tend to try and follow the parring hand back into a punch which relies on good footwork/ body movement, to give a one two on my opponent.
Let’s say you’re in matched leads (as was Cro Cop against Gonzaga)…jab/cross comes from Gonzaga…you pak on the outside with your lead against his lead - and do the same with your other hand against the cross - and then immediately follow him back with a straight lead to his face/head with your first hand (Cro Cop’s lead right).
Hunt…there’s got to be techniques taken out of the forms/drills/chi sao/wooden dummy and put into specific scenarios - but always as a variation on whatever theme you’ve worked/drilled…because if you do it ten times against a resisting opponent - the end result would be ten slightly-to-very-different variations.
It doesn’t matter, though.
Just working “off” various themes will program your mind/body on some level to always be in the game.
But to just trust to “concepts” training (with little specifics) will never get the job done against a skilled, resisting opponent. There’s just too much left to the imagination (literally) that could happen - and without any prior training of the “possible specifics” (drills)…you’re not really adequately prepared.
I don’t expect a clown with no REAL wing chun skills (like TN) to get this - but you’re a different story.
Like the jazz musician - you’ve got to know the notes, scales, chord patterns, and melodies in your sleep before you can successfully improvise on any themes…I mean you can improvise and be redundant (so the concert is boring - big deal)…but redundancy in fighting could mean that you get KTFO.
First I may not have been very clear. I dont think of things in the way of use a specific technique against a specific attack. For me covering is a concept. How you go about it changes from situation to situation or moment to moment. There are some good basic covering methods but as long as you are covered it doesnt matter how you do it.
[/QUOTE]
OK, I see what you mean.
I don’t know where the “use a specific technique against a specific technique” stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. “Keeping your eye on the ball” is not in my view a “concept”, but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement).
Drills are interesting,I try not to train or teach any drills that use any unrealistic motions or actions. So no reaching or blocking. I dont use a pak punch drill the way most do it for example. It does help with some coordination in the beginning I guess but I dont want anyone to get the idea that you can pak a jab with any kind of reasonable success factor.
[QUOTE=Liddel;757118]Pak Sao or a parry against jabs are very high percentage…the follow up punch commonly taught in VT is what adds the difficulty of sucess IMO.
I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that – there is a reason you don’t see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people). And that this guy got away with it doesn’t make it high percentage (people sometimes get away with extremely low percentage shots too, and I could find many examples of them, i.e., knees as ‘counters’ to the shoot). One of the things about low percentage stuff is that there is a place and time where the odds of making it work go up – when the opponent is much worse than you, when he is doing something poorly (like in your gif), etc.
I don’t know where the “use a specific technique against a specific technique” stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. “Keeping your eye on the ball” is not in my view a “concept”, but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement).
[/QUOTE]
Really not trolling here, what approach DO they use then?
If no ‘functional martial artist’ uses the ‘technique vs. technique’ approach, but also don’t use a ‘conceptual’ approach, what do they use?
What do you mean here?
And IMO, from my WC perspective, cro cop gave up his space/‘gate concept’ and got smacked (if even not a WC practitioner and didn’t realize it as this). It was a simple mistake, and a costly one. He just got caught. Even if he anticipated a mid-body strike, he still didn’t cover his upper gate.
I feel anyone can make this mistake, conceptual guys, ‘technique’ guys, clowns, etc - deppends on the awareness at that time.
I think what could have also possibly saved him, besides having his hands up, would have been something more rudmentary as changing the range so the kick was much less effective (stepping in, back etc). But, of course, it’s hard to say not having been the one in the ring. And yeah, he did look like he was out of his element!
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;757172]I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that – there is a reason you don’t see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people). And that this guy got away with it doesn’t make it high percentage (people sometimes get away with extremely low percentage shots too, and I could find many examples of them, i.e., knees as ‘counters’ to the shoot). One of the things about low percentage stuff is that there is a place and time where the odds of making it work go up – when the opponent is much worse than you, when he is doing something poorly (like in your gif), etc.[/QUOTE]
There’s a big difference between seeing things used at low percentage and things not working at low percentage.
Just because someone doesn’t see things used that much in whatever ‘arena’ you ‘see things’, it doesn’t mean they can’t be and aren’t used effectively at a high percentage.
Maybe the reason you’re just not seeing them used very often (effective OR otherwise) is because they are not a focus of training for the people you’ve ‘seen’. If people aren’t training it, you won’t see it.
If I watch boxers fight on the street, I’m not going to see them use many kicks or BJJ. Not because they aren’t effective, but maybe because they are just not part of thier fight training.
FWIW, most UFC fights I’ve seen on TV, the only defense I’ve really seen used at a ‘high percentage’ is moving away, covering up or none (just trading punches). from my POV, none of these are the ‘smartest’ way to defend. I see this used to a high percentage all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s the most ‘effective’ way by any means.
FWIW, most UFC fights I’ve seen on TV, the only defense I’ve really seen used at a ‘high percentage’ is moving away, covering up or none (just trading punches). from my POV, none of these are the ‘smartest’ way to defend. I see this used to a high percentage all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s the most ‘effective’ way by any means.[/QUOTE]
What do you think the most effective way would be?
"I don’t know where the “use a specific technique against a specific technique” stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. “Keeping your eye on the ball” is not in my view a “concept”, but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement). " (TN)
TOTAL AND COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED BULL5HIT…written by a moron who doesn’t know anything about fighting - but who is trying to pass himself off as some sort of an expert.
OF COURSE…EVERY GOOD FIGHTER…will practice and drill SPECIFIC responses to specific situations…ie.- you shoot…AND I SPRAWL. (Okay, now let’s try that again. And again. And one more time, thank you!)
This is how you train effectively.
What a friggin’ moron.
IN FACT, I’M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT TN’S POSTS ARE JUST AN EXERCISE IN TRYING TO SEE HOW FAR HE CAN THROW DOUBLE-SPEAK OUT AT PEOPLE AND GET AWAY WITH IT.
How far will people let him go before they push back on his delusional envelope? :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
OF COURSE…EVERY GOOD FIGHTER…will practice and drill SPECIFIC responses to specific situations…ie.- you shoot…AND I SPRAWL. (okay…now let’s try that again. And again).[/QUOTE]
I don’t know where the “use a specific technique against a specific technique” stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach.
BJJ as espoused by a number of elite practitioners is pretty much about “I try A. If he counters A with B, I do C. If C doesn’t work, I try D. If he does E, I …”
Eddie Bravo’s new book is all about this approach. I’ve heard John Will and JJ Machado advocate much the same thing.
“Flow with the go” is good for beginners, and occasionally to keep training fun. But most coaches are telling you to drop that approach and work on tactics and strategies PDQ.
I don’t know if chess is a sport, but the same thing certainly applies there.
