Cro Crop saved by Wing Chun?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
61

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;757380]"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? :cool: :cool: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
first of all calling people morons bull****ters etc and all that **** is making you look like a chump mate, knock it off…

anyway lets take shoot and sprawl drills.

you could drill sprawl vs shoot or you could drill take the man down vs dont get taken down

first is technique vs technique, second is skill versus skill. Terence, is that what you’re getting at?

the skill-drill vs technique-drill thing is interesting. i remember my first mma training session being told when the timer went to “get double-underhooks”. the thing is i wasnt taught any techniques to do so. if i’d have asked “what techniques should i use” i would have got the answer “do anything you want just get underhooks”. techniques come later.

so you drill a skill, not a technique.

of course the obvious answer is mix both but its interesting to say well which direction does the progression go in, start with open drills and find what needs to be technique drilled, or drill techniques then open it up to closer to sparring… biiig diference in approach.

also ive gotta say i find it really interesting finding out what comes out of myself under pressure, is it techniques i’ve drilled in, or skills ive developed in more open drills/sparring. go fight and find out for yourself :wink:

62

[QUOTE=stricker;757722]agreed about a basic parry/pak. the boxing/thai hands are different to wing chun though as the guard position is higher and closer to the face/body than wing chun man/wu…
[/QUOTE]

Kinda dependant on who you learn MT from AND who you learn WC from. :slight_smile:

My recent MT coach, Yuttana Wongbandue, didn’t advocate holding the hands above the height of the face or that close to the head. It prevents you from punching with power or seeing what’s going on.

It is a compromise between being covered and being able to attack.

the boxing/mt parry uses no more than a few inches movement and is right close to the face. that way you’re not reaching and asking to get nailed by a double-jab, jab-cross, whatever.

=> just re-read your post after posting, yeah you covered all this :slight_smile:

my guess is the wing chun answer to this is that the pak sao becomes a palm strike if it doesnt find the punch (also means follow the right geometrry, centerline etc)

Hmm. Interesting idea. Still sound like your extending your arm though.

I don’t see why the WC answer has to be any different. I wasn’t taught anything that complicated in WC: Simple parries and few inches of movement are good enough.

also what i found interesting is that thai boxing has a few parries/hand movements similar to wing chun (e.g. kao sao) a lot of the time while kicking/knee-ing or going to clinch. the main difference is the basic structure of the art, how the hands move from the basic guard position.

True. I think that difference is due to the kicking/kneeing and clinching.

(note about teaching method: the thai boxers etc dont label every shape pak, kao, fook, etc they just say parry it out, in, up, across, push this, pull that etc. getting it to work then comes from practice and working it out not following x=a*b+c)

The really good coaches can explain everything as well IMHO. It’s not just left to the student to figure it out. e.g. “Don’t reach out to parry. You get punched.”

63

Back on the Crocop/Gonzaga fight:
I watched it again and it was just as Joe Rogan commentated that Crocop was looking tentative that Gonzaga kicked his head off. He really was spot on with that comment. Crocop was sort of collecting himself and taking a breath then he just wandered closer into kicking range without having much of anything in mind.

Gonzaga probably spotted that as well and threw his best kick.

64

[QUOTE=AmanuJRY;757721]Answer = yes.

In the same manner as one learns chi sau and then applies it to his/her own game.;)[/QUOTE]

Actually, the answer is “sort of”. What I am saying is that in my view technique is taught as an example of a skill in action (it’s a snapshot of skill), and performance of the skill is called technique. The objective is to learn and develop that skill; learning/practing technique is just a step toward that objective. In open skill activities, like fighting or tennis, everything we do (technique) has to be continually modified, adjusted, and adaptaed to the changing situation/environment. So, for example, every forehand drive is different, and you are not just doing the same technique every time you hit a forehand, but you are using the same skill. Each forehand is a slightly different technique (example of the performance of the skill). In that way, when the ball comes to your forehand side, you hit a forehand but as a player you are not thinking in terms of technique A to counter technique B – you are thinking in terms of hitting the ball (the skill). Similarly, when someone shoots, I don’t think good grapplers think in terms of use sprawl to counter shoot but more along the lines of stop his takedown (hit the ball).

With regard to chi sao, I see it as a platform (its own game) to learn certain skills. But those skills will not transfer directly from that game (chi sao) into another, very different game (fighting) without some significant modification and tweaking – which can only come through taking those skills and putting them into that different game (fighting) and training them.

65

[QUOTE=stricker;757725]anyway lets take shoot and sprawl drills.

you could drill sprawl vs shoot or you could drill take the man down vs dont get taken down

first is technique vs technique, second is skill versus skill. Terence, is that what you’re getting at?
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. And this is why I think WCK is not a “conceptually based martial art” but rather is a skill-based martial art.

the skill-drill vs technique-drill thing is interesting. i remember my first mma training session being told when the timer went to “get double-underhooks”. the thing is i wasnt taught any techniques to do so. if i’d have asked “what techniques should i use” i would have got the answer “do anything you want just get underhooks”. techniques come later.

so you drill a skill, not a technique.

of course the obvious answer is mix both but its interesting to say well which direction does the progression go in, start with open drills and find what needs to be technique drilled, or drill techniques then open it up to closer to sparring… biiig diference in approach.

also ive gotta say i find it really interesting finding out what comes out of myself under pressure, is it techniques i’ve drilled in, or skills ive developed in more open drills/sparring. go fight and find out for yourself :wink:

As I sad in my post above, I think technique is an example of performance of a skill. And so we can use technique as a means of teaching the greater skill.

66

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;757787]So, for example, every forehand drive is different, and you are not just doing the same technique every time you hit a forehand, but you are using the same skill. Each forehand is a slightly different technique (example of the performance of the skill). In that way, when the ball comes to your forehand side, you hit a forehand but as a player you are not thinking in terms of technique A to counter technique B – you are thinking in terms of hitting the ball (the skill). Similarly, when someone shoots, I don’t think good grapplers think in terms of use sprawl to counter shoot but more along the lines of stop his takedown (hit the ball).[/QUOTE]

But sleight variances are a given, so we tend to lump techniques into groups based on similarities to reduce having a catalogue of 1000’s of techniques to keep track of (name), and only experience will teach you the sleight variances.:wink:

With regard to chi sao, I see it as a platform (its own game) to learn certain skills. But those skills will not transfer directly from that game (chi sao) into another, very different game (fighting) without some significant modification and tweaking – which can only come through taking those skills and putting them into that different game (fighting) and training them.

I agree.:cool:

67

That’s the problem with these UFC guys, they are not training Wing Chun. Now, whomever can market this angle and get corn crop on board is going to hit the big moneys. Better ger Furey on board as well.:rolleyes:

68

cool edmund we agree on a few bits and bobs :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Edmund;757726]Kinda dependant on who you learn MT from AND who you learn WC from. :slight_smile:

My recent MT coach, Yuttana Wongbandue, didn’t advocate holding the hands above the height of the face or that close to the head. It prevents you from punching with power or seeing what’s going on.

It is a compromise between being covered and being able to attack.
[/QUOTE]true. in thai/boxing/mma i keep my right hand by my jaw/cheek (been kicked in the head before, not letting it happen again…) and lead hand a few inches lower and out a little to get the jab working.

in wing chun i was taught the guard position was man sao wu sao about half way up the torso. so, do you use a higher/closer guard in wing chun? also, how do you mix/relate the two arts, so i can get where your coming from, is it a personal thing, or does your school do both, or your style of wing chun?

oh also, in both arts ive been taught (and worked out) to vary the guard depending in range and circumstances etc

Hmm. Interesting idea. Still sound like your extending your arm though.
yeah your still extending your arm, but you follow (with body/footwork) through to strike, so it doesnt matter so much. again, i cant vouch for it working, but thats core WT theory as i understand it, everything is a strike intercepted. if the intercept (the parry/pak) doesnt happen its a strike…

I don’t see why the WC answer has to be any different. I wasn’t taught anything that complicated in WC: Simple parries and few inches of movement are good enough.
yup but the classical wing chun positions tan bon fook etc your hands are much further away from your body/face than when your shelling up in thai/boxing. i think conceptually there might not be a difference but the physical implementation will be a bit different for the reasons ive said.

The really good coaches can explain everything as well IMHO. It’s not just left to the student to figure it out. e.g. “Don’t reach out to parry. You get punched.”
nah i didnt mean that, any teacher should be able to see thats going wrong, i just meant wing chun is very technique-oriented in that every little movement is documented in the forms, named etc muay thai seems a bit more natural in a way… different teachers have differnt styles etc but this is a bit deeper than that… part of it could be due toa differnce in how the arts have travelled from east to west

69

[QUOTE=stricker;757889]
true. in thai/boxing/mma i keep my right hand by my jaw/cheek (been kicked in the head before, not letting it happen again…) and lead hand a few inches lower and out a little to get the jab working.
[/QUOTE]

I think there are a variety of schools of thought on MT hand position. Some like it very close to head, others less so.

[QUOTE=stricker;757889]
in wing chun i was taught the guard position was man sao wu sao about half way up the torso. so, do you use a higher/closer guard in wing chun? also, how do you mix/relate the two arts, so i can get where your coming from, is it a personal thing, or does your school do both, or your style of wing chun?
[/QUOTE]

Our school does both.
And I believe in terms of guard position, the 2 arts are relatively close.
Same height for both hands - head level. In front of the head but not against it.
Both elbows with about the same amount of bend in them but lead hand is more forward due to the chest being not square on.

Our school doesn’t really advocate a man sao and wu sao as a guarding position.
We use a higher/closer guard.

oh also, in both arts ive been taught (and worked out) to vary the guard depending in range and circumstances etc

Same here.

yeah your still extending your arm, but you follow (with body/footwork) through to strike, so it doesnt matter so much. again, i cant vouch for it working, but thats core WT theory as i understand it, everything is a strike intercepted. if the intercept (the parry/pak) doesnt happen its a strike…

Sounds a little bit difficult but worth a try.

yup but the classical wing chun positions tan bon fook etc your hands are much further away from your body/face than when your shelling up in thai/boxing. i think conceptually there might not be a difference but the physical implementation will be a bit different for the reasons ive said.

I find tan bong and fook are generally more useful in the situations where the arms are in contact and we’re fighting to establish our grips or clinch on the opponent.

Whereas other techniques like pak sao, tiu sao, or biu sao are more useful for establishing that contact or parrying.

Shelling up in MT is conceptually different again and a great defence for kicks especially. Something Crocop could have done rather than block. Not really a WC concept.

This is where WC could learn a thing or two from a stronger kicking art such as MT. When your shin and forearm form a nice big shield to get behind, it doesn’t matter what height the kick is coming. There’s no gap to get a kick through.

nah i didnt mean that, any teacher should be able to see thats going wrong, i just meant wing chun is very technique-oriented in that every little movement is documented in the forms, named etc muay thai seems a bit more natural in a way… different teachers have differnt styles etc but this is a bit deeper than that… part of it could be due toa differnce in how the arts have travelled from east to west

I think so. They actually do have a few tricky technique names too but I’d also say it’s not as important to remember them.

70

Sorry i have to backtrack, ive been away a few days - i have a life…

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;757172]I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that .[/QUOTE]

Parries are used all the time in many types of fighting sports including UFC and PRIDE - i was saying the follow up punch like in the vid is what adds difficulty and makes it low percentage. So we kinda have a similar POV shcmuck.

I do spar with good people - perhaps compared to you they are not so good who knows, who cares, your ellitest attitude is out of order -

I suggest you spend more time not being a jerk trying to make yourself seem better than everyone.

If you took time to properly read peoples posts instead of looking for points to counter youd get it right.

Its a shame - all the good insights you offer are overshadowed by the way you treat people round here.

You may be the $hit, you may train with the best, you may BE THE BEST. But it doesnt mean what i have isnt of value and im sick of your BS.
IM OUT
DREW