FWIW, standing helpless=hypoglycemia according to Coleman. He had/has? some well publicized gassing problems so that could be it.
I didn’t bring Coleman and Kerr up as “Self Defense Models.” I brought them up to demonstrate that there are plenty of people that didn’t just “revert.” I could bring up others–but that’s not really important. Just as one bad WCer in a UFC doesn’t reflect on the whole art, one guy who isn’t sure what to do doesn’t mean we “revert” to “x” (just laying there for wrestlers, etc.)
Please don’t change the subject from “reversion” to “How you should fight.”
I might point out that being scared to move from a seemingly safe position against Royce unless you are SURE what you are doing is perfectly reasonable…
MP- Ok-
on revertment.
I have only seen Kerr’s pictures. Have not watched him in a contest (note- not fight).
Coleman did a revertment of sorts. When he had Smith on the ground he couldnt choke him out or struke him out.Inability to adapt to Smith’s multidimensional approach. He became just a hulk looking for a tackle of some sort again.
I saw some wing chun principles in Smith’s work here and there.
(I look at many things through wing chun eyes-sic sempre).
I see a fleeting bit of wing chun in Tyson’s short uppercuts up the middle- in his prime. These days his feet are frozen. But his teeth sometimes finds the center line.. and he darn near broke Botha’s arm. But again with sports sooner rather than later- sic transit gloriam mundi.
Wing chun is based on a detailed and intricate set of principles of motion- it is not a collection of techniques. No revertment just adaptation. Plagiarism(from not the best of sources)- be like water my friend.
I have only seen Kerr’s pictures. Have not watched him in a contest (note- not fight).
I might argue that the IVC contests where Kerr made his mark (and his “Smashing Machine” moniker) are as close to a fight as you can get, but I certainly understand (and agree) with your point that sportive combat matches are not “fights.”
I would argue that Coleman didn’t “revert.” He wasn’t LOOKING to just pin Mo–he wanted to cause some damage, but Mo made it hard. Top level guys can make each other look helpless/stupid from time to time. Severn, on the other hand (much as I love him) does look for the “Lay and Pray.” I saw him in a match live and it was one of the most boring things I’ve ever witnessed.
Wing chun is based on a detailed and intricate set of principles of motion- it is not a collection of techniques.
So’s greco, so’s judo, so’s Tai Chi, so’s (insert art here). Same can be said of any well practiced, well trained art. What’s your point?
Be like water? Rickson is an EXCELLENT source (depending on what you’re talking about)
MP sez:
So’s greco, so’s judo, so’s Tai Chi, so’s (insert art here). Same can be said of any well practiced, well trained art. What’s your point?
Top level Chen style taiji -yes. The other two in their current incarnations are defined and limited by their objectives-
pin, throw etc… and are also more size dependent than
taiji or wing chun. Emphasis on more…relative.
Gotta go to put bread on the table.
Yes- Rickson is superb and fluid. I see some (gasp) wing chun principles in his work.
Top level Chen style taiji -yes. The other two in their current incarnations are defined and limited by their objectives-
So what? That doesn’t make them any less principle based. It just makes their emphasis not the same as WC.
also more size dependent than taiji or wing chun.
Says who? This is like me saying that BJJ relies more on leverage than wrestling. Just because there are weight classes for sportive competition doesn’t make the art size-dependent or strength-reliant. Nor does it necessarily encourage development in that direction. I have taken down people MANY pounds heavier than I am who were much stronger.
Top level Chen style taiji -yes. The other two in their current incarnations are defined and limited by their objectives-
So what? That doesn’t make them any less principle based. It just makes their emphasis not the same as WC.(MP)
quote:
also more size dependent than taiji or wing chun.
Good principles are good principles. Period(MP)
For me a colon maybe- not a period.
Yes they are lots of good principles in the activities that you mention.
But we will continue to differ I think. The crux of our differences is this-- you state good principles are good principles.
My view is that the merits of a good principle is in the specified or inherent context.
For the immensely strong Karelin?(The Russian Greco roman great.sp?)- the context is
pinning or points. My AAU judo champion friends context were the throw.
The classic wing chun context was complete self defense.
My interest was in that context. In that context I found and find the wing chun principles to be reallya system of interlocking principles.
Others view might be different…ultimately judgement calls are involved.
My secondary interest was and is- understanding the principles in sucha way that does minimal harm to the practitioner and perhaps even assist in his pursuit of or maintenace of good health.
Many combative sports fail comparatively on the latter count. One of my national judo champion friends is immobile on one side of his face, has broken collar bones, dislocated his shoulders and many many other injuries. I find that good wing chun(if not muddled by other factors) is good in three contexts- 1. self defense 2,health
and 3. self development.
Of course opinions can vary- including yours. I can live with that.
Nice chat. Cheers rather than repeating myself.
Originally posted by yuanfen
[B]… The classic wing chun context was complete self defense.
My interest was in that context. In that context I found and find the wing chun principles to be reallya system of interlocking principles.
…
My secondary interest was and is- understanding the principles in sucha way that does minimal harm to the practitioner and perhaps even assist in his pursuit of or maintenace of good health.
…
I find that good wing chun(if not muddled by other factors) is good in three contexts- 1. self defense 2,health
and 3. self development. …[/B]
Originally posted by yuanfen My secondary interest was and is- understanding the principles in such a way that does minimal harm to the practitioner and perhaps even assist in his pursuit of or maintenace of good health.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but…While my octagenarian former coach Yosh Uchida still gets around pretty well, a lot of my top teammates from San Jose State’s (longest NCAA record for consequecutive dual meet wins in any sport) judo team from the '70s sustained so many concussions in competition that they can no longer safely pursue the sport.
[B]
Many combative sports fail comparatively on the latter count. One of my national judo champion friends is immobile on one side of his face, has broken collar bones, dislocated his shoulders and many many other injuries.
[/B]
A familiar litany of pain. I ended one teammate’s potential career in practice by breaking his leg at the knee. (Not my fault, but his.)
[B]
I find that good wing chun(if not muddled by other factors) is good in three contexts- 1. self defense 2,health
and 3. self development.
[/B]
I was looking for all three when I serendipitously found Wing Chun.
Oh, for christ’s sake–now your talking about the difference between competition and non-competition. NOT the difference between “How ‘principally’ based an art is.”
In competitions, INJURY HAPPENS. That’s the way it goes. Now, if you happen not to like competition, or do not compete because of fear of injury, that’s fine. But it does not speak to the underlying principles of an art (leverage, body structure, etc). I watched some Shuai Chiao vids, in action (against striking). It looks like wrestling. Or Judo if you prefer. Some minor variations in gripping, but that is a preference issue. The body structure and movement was the same. Why? Because good principles transcend style.
All those injuries tell you is that the principles work. (not that there aren’t happier, better ways to have that demonstrated)
also more size dependent than taiji or wing chun.
Why? Because you said so? Because some other people who might validate your opinion say so? Absurd.
Here: “Wing Chun is more size dependant than Wrestling or BJJ.” :rolleyes:
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I am not unusually strong or large and have out-wrestled and out-BJJed guys SIGNIFICANTLY bigger and stronger than me. Conversely, my first real ass-kicking in BJJ, barring my instructor came at the hands of somebody I outweighed by over 50 lbs.
I’m out of this thread. No use arguing with a person who sees WC principles in somebody who never did WC (Rickson) but can’t say that good principles are good principles that cross stylistic (and personal) boundaries. Here’s how I’ve figured out it works–If a fighter executes a movement well, he’s embodying wing chun principles (completely independent of actually practicing wing chun). But if he executes a movement poorly, then he’s serving as further evidence that his art is inferior to the principles of wing chun.
Systems are merely attempts to understand and cultivate principles. None are perfect or complete, since humans themselves aren’t perfect or complete. We are, however, individualistic, with different experiences, tastes, and personal biases.
There’s a wide (wider than any of us deserve) range of really great MA out there, and we’re very fortunate to be able to choose from among them something that we feel best suits our needs and nature.
Makes comparison rather useless, but makes training rather kewl.
(BTW- I’ve been injured in almost every MA I’ve ever spent time in, I figure its cost of doing business, and I reckon plenty of folks get injured, or worse, outside MA).
