[QUOTE=k gledhill;815606]most get stck in the process, never shown the goal because they dont know it, beyond application fighting that doesnt work.[/QUOTE]
True, I was stuck there for 17yrs 
J
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;815605]You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GPDpd0Jxf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKgu9Duw0Wk[/QUOTE]
Well after watching that first vid, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is time for me to move on from Wing Chun and try something else, since the video showed inconclusively that WC doesn’t work:)
Thanks guys, it was nice while it lasted 
James
Me too time is no guarantee …25-30 years doesnt mean anything…
I know :D…
[QUOTE=sihing;815610]Well after watching that first vid, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is time for me to move on from Wing Chun and try something else, since the video showed inconclusively that WC doesn’t work:)
Thanks guys, it was nice while it lasted
James[/QUOTE]
Hey, you already wasted 17 years. Why not waste another 17 more?
Nov. 10, 1775
Happy Birthday, Oo-rah
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;815562]Do you learn to use the tan, bong, fook, pak, punch, etc. – the tools of WCK – as you will really use them in fighting? If so, then you should be able to demonstrate (1) this is how we train to do things and (2) here I am fighting and I’m doing those things just as how I train (practice) to do them. In other words, what I train to do corresponds to what I really do. Because isn’t that really the test for good, effective training? Who thinks it is good training to practice doing one thing and then do another when you actually fight?
My point is that if 1 and 2 don’t correspond, then 1 is fantasy – it’s not what will happen when you fight, it’s what someone (who doesn’t know better) believes will happen when you fight. That belief is a fantasy.
How can someone know what they can really do ini fighting? You can’t through some theoretical, conceptual, intellectual, etc. construct – through a beleif structure. You can only know via experience fighting. From seeing that yes, indeed, I can (or someone can) do that or that I can’t do that. That is when it becomes a reality-based MA.[/QUOTE]
This is by in large a changing of your statement. First it was that the tools/drilling methods of WCK won’t work and are fantasy based. Now your saying it’s how you train them must have realistic challenges, such as full-resistance fighting/sparring among others.
This is a more constructive statement, and is no longer in conflict with what many of us have been saying on this thread all along.
It is with precisely this in mind, why I said earlier that the WC clip you referenced will not work. Even in a perfect world scenario.
BUT… it still could be an example of just one point in time in a learning progression… or a training drill just to help a beginner student get their own body to understand the basic shapes and movements.
There is so much learning to be had just on personal awareness and development of basic tools alone that to incorporate full-resistance training from the get go, is too much for a beginner student to absorb at once. It’s like asking them to swallow a gallon of tea at once… they’re going to spit some back up.
Because, if the student can’t even do a pak so with correct hand structure, leverage control, proper range… all the details of a strong bridge… how are they ever going to be able to face full-on resitance and skill challenges? The answer is they won’t..
Against even a single strike alone (heaven forbid a combination), they will get bounced off, crashed, get taken to the ground, forfeit their mobility… etc… etc…
The key is proper guidence during the development of tools with greater and greater doses of resistance and varying methods of engagements (randomness) being thrown in along the way. Until full freeform drilling/fightin/sparring… what we refer to as san da… can be had.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;815631]Hey, you already wasted 17 years. Why not waste another 17 more?[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha, your a funny man Dale:cool:
And we all know Dale doesnt have a clue anyway but he’s the forum joker so..fire away dude.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;815658]And we all know Dale doesnt have a clue anyway but he’s the forum joker so..fire away dude.[/QUOTE]
When I look at who made the statement, and reflect on what he really knows about me, my abilities and skills, and what he knows about WC, it makes me take his statement very lightly and not with much credibility. It makes me laugh really, because it was just a form of attack with bit of arrogance/ignorance added in.
James
[QUOTE=k gledhill;815600]I eye jabbed a guy in a bar fight once, then ko’d his friend with the same right as I turned and faced him… 2 v me 
skinny old me… eye jabs sting they dont finish, like accidental eye jabs in sparring , you can carry on but at 75 % ..if the following attack doesnt come you can recover …but if it does :o…
Bil gee teaches to hit and face while pivoting to strike with the same extended arm , retracting it to rechamber as it fires again…functional used it in a real fight .
I used the finger jab because there were 2 guys coming and I couldnt commit to either so tried to do a ’ f&ck off ’ move to the guy on the right , we moved along a narrow channel created by the bar tables. I couldnt maneuver anywhere so had to take what they gave me …my ring so to speak . couldt run I was the bar security ;)…
terence police reports can verify this , only they told me to say things like I was attacked , so i threw my arms out to defend myself and the guy’s fell over : ) NOT that I do martial arts …that we hide from everyone.[/QUOTE]
Great point - If we want to take the advice of the two Anti-Wc guys here (and you know who you are) and look to people with ‘proven results’ (who ever that is…) we could look at UFC and the way chuck lidell won 3 consecutive fights - eye pokes. Whether intentional or not is besides the point, I think that Randy C and Tito O will both agree that once they recieved a good thumb or finger to the eye, the fight was pretty much over for them..
but yeah, that’s all fantasy and nonsense.. :rolleyes:
Purpose / goals
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;815559]
That’s right, they do have a different approach to learning/training MAs, one that isn’t very good for teaching/learning/developing significant levels of skill.[/QUOTE]
True to a point, the “general” training methology wont develop significant levels of skill.
IMO it can develop good levels of skill, especially for every day self defence and against other hobby martial artists with the same experience levels.
If your looking to compete at the top levels though, you must adapt or seriously complement your training with a more modern approach… sure.
Im not worthy of UFC but i certainly punch above my weight though. :o
DREW
[QUOTE=Liddel;815693]True to a point, the “general” training methology wont develop significant levels of skill.
IMO it can develop good levels of skill, especially for every day self defence and against other hobby martial artists with the same experience levels.
If your looking to compete at the top levels though, you must adapt or seriously complement your training with a more modern approach… sure.
Im not worthy of UFC but i certainly punch above my weight though. :o
DREW[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but Drew, you have to realize that to Terence, MMA “COMPETITIONS” and training practices, are the only thing that is real. If it doesn’t fit into that box, he doesn’t recognize it as signifigant skill. The funniest thing is that T has said over and over again that everyone is born with an instinct to fight, but not to a signifigant level. Like any of us are ever going to meet a Liddel or Otiz in the street, lol. It’s all a bunch of fuzzy logic to support an emotional point of view because of a bad experience he had years ago. What people will do to satisfy the ego:)
James
Hold on a sec…
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;815496]Military and law enforcement training… pretty much everybody and their WC grandmothers’ supposed claim to fame.
The kung fu “master” from this infamous match trained marines, law enforcement and border patrol agents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpzLlWZIiXo
After the fight, most people said he sucked.[/QUOTE]
Not that i personally think this guy had skill - thats evident - but im not one to jump to the excuse that it was his training alone that was to blame. :rolleyes:
Were you not the first one to state, after the vid posted of you and Rashan (sp?), that he was BIGGER and younger which is a fair comment to a point, even though you obviously have mucho experience.
But when one looks at that vid you dont afford this guy the same type of scrutiny, no mention of the difference in experience and SIZE - just that hes a prime example of the Traditional training methology which sucks…LOL
Moreover, were judging HIS skill (and therefore the Traditional Training Methology) based on one fight ?
IMO for a solid argument you need to look at the two with the same eyes without the obvious bias Dale. :rolleyes:
I doesnt change the argument, but perhaps the potency ?
DREW
[QUOTE=sihing;815697] It’s all a bunch of fuzzy logic to support an emotional point of view because of a bad experience he had years ago. What people will do to satisfy the ego:)
James[/QUOTE]
Im not heavily religious -
But IME “Born again’s” tend to be way more devout than those that always were religious…
They have a lot of time to make up for…
I find this crosses over to many other things in life…
:o
DREW
[QUOTE=Liddel;815701]
Were you not the first one to state, after the vid posted of you and Rashan (sp?), that he was BIGGER and younger which is a fair comment to a point, even though you obviously have mucho experience.[/QUOTE]
And it didn’t stop me from taking him down several times, did it?
But when one looks at that vid you dont afford this guy the same type of scrutiny, no mention of the difference in experience and SIZE - just that hes a prime example of the Traditional training methology which sucks…LOL
Drew-
Maybe you missed the context of my posting that particular clip. It wasn’t to point out that the guy was good or bad. It was to show that training law enforcement and military guys has nothing to do with whether or not you know what you are doing.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;815658]And we all know Dale doesnt have a clue anyway but he’s the forum joker so..fire away dude.[/QUOTE]
Umm… read the first post of this thread. It is about BJJ being a fantasy based MA. A thread started buy a guy whose entire experience with BJJ is watching it on TV.
Additionally, how many people who have posted on thise thread have actually trained in BJJ?
Now who is clueless?
Not to mention the fact that I probably have five times the real world experience that you do and I can’t remember those altercations in the detail you seem to be able to. Funny how when I talk to others whom I know for a fact have also had many real world altercations, they don’t seem to recall all those fine little details either.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;815720] And it didn’t stop me from taking him down several times, did it?[/QUOTE]
No your right, and i see it for what it was, just a friendly exchange…
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;815720]
Drew-
Maybe you missed the context of my posting that particular clip. It wasn’t to point out that the guy was good or bad. It was to show that training law enforcement and military guys has nothing to do with whether or not you know what you are doing. [/QUOTE]
Yeah well that beguile’s me… nothing like teaching cops the old ‘fighting with hands down’ approach :eek:
DREW
[QUOTE=Liddel;815727]Yeah well that beguile’s me… nothing like teaching cops the old ‘fighting with hands down’ approach :eek:
DREW[/QUOTE]
Their philosophy was that in the real world, if you are attacked, you will not have your hands up, which is true. It can be especially true for law enforcement personnel, who often have to reach into their utility belts, or are in the process of writing a citation when a suspect becomes agressive. Since theirs was supposed to be a real-world, CQB system, they attempted to mimic what was supposed to happen when attacked. Hence, the hands down approach.
Their approach was a perfect example of the fantasy based theoretical approach to fighting. The problem is, they forgot that you have to actaully practice fighting from this position against real, live resisting opponents.
There used to be a vid available on youtube called “Rare submissions of MMA”, which would have lengthened Dale’s list considerably. I was going to post the link but uUnfortunately it’s been removed due to Pride’s copyright.
You don’t see a huge number of submissions in MMA, because some are higher percentage than others. Many are only available in a particular small set of circumstances or require longer periods of specialised training to pull off., than do the bread and butter ones.
You probably see much less variety in KO techniques in striking. That said, you see the occasional KO from a spinning hook kick to the head (there was one in TKD at the Athens Olympics, and not a TKO either - the recipient was on the deck out cold). An aquaintance even successfully used a jumping splits kick to hit two guys in a brawl once. The situation just presented itself, though it might never do so again in his lifetime.
Most of my instructors in various arts have encouraged to develop first a reasonably small range of basic techniques to gain a foundation in the art, then encouraged me to find a small number of techniques that work for me that I can use all the time if I am under threat.
If my only concern was self protection against the ever present potential threat of an attack, that’s probably all I need to learn. Most MA people expand on that because to live that way is pretty sad, and very boring. and arguably fantasy, that of living in an action movie, albeit one with very little action for most of us. Arts, whether you describe them s functional or not, have much more to them than this.
Even Geoff Thompson and his fellow bouncers had simple one or two shot combos they used all the time. But most of them also studied and continued to study multiple MA’s at a deep level.
Now as another thread gets turned into the same tired debate that most of them do…
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;815751]Their philosophy was that in the real world, if you are attacked, you will not have your hands up, which is true. It can be especially true for law enforcement personnel, who often have to reach into their utility belts, or are in the process of writing a citation when a suspect becomes agressive. Since theirs was supposed to be a real-world, CQB system, they attempted to mimic what was supposed to happen when attacked. Hence, the hands down approach.
Their approach was a perfect example of the fantasy based theoretical approach to fighting. The problem is, they forgot that you have to actaully practice fighting from this position against real, live resisting opponents.[/QUOTE]
I think Dale has added a word to his Wing Chun forum Vocabulary, “Fantasy Based Theoretical Fighting”, with the occasional addition of the word “approach” between the words theoretcial and fighting. I’m happy for you dude:)