Sparring clip no.2

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8igqrpZ-_U

I enjoyed all the feedback from previous clip, quite excited to see if we get 5 pages from this one.
One did notice that the disenters have no footage to post, is this because they are to busy winning major hardcore comps as the result of their ‘real full contact sparring’.
Do call in when next in UK and see how you last against young Lol in the above clip, only 14 yrs old and quite small, but great control and focus echoing the respect and self discipline we promote @ the Gym.

BV.

2

Nice, better than the first one, this one showed CONTACT that disrupted the other persons sparring.

3

Not bad at all, Vern. Better than the first vid. Particularly liked tha bald guy in the dark blue shirt against the guy in the black sleaveless tee shirt…and the oriental-looking guy had some good defense and footwork going.

Now if they put on headgear and took it to the next level a bit (didn’t really see punches landing to the head or face) - it would be even better.

Anyhow, props for the vid. These guys are on a good track.

Even saw a very young-looking kid in there. Very cool. What’s the lineage?

4

I guess you want some opinion?

Again to restate what I said on the other thread:

take off the napkin MMA gloves. They do not protect the person you hit, they are meant for protecting your hand from getting hurt when you hit someone at full force.

Put on some boxing gloves, that way when you start punching with intent..(YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE PERSON BELIEVE THAT ITS A REAL PUNCH) the other person isn’t scared to be hit. The fact is that getting hit is part of the training, but you can greatly increase the benefit by letting loose without worry of braking peoples bones.

I would also suggest one person pretend to be a boxer or a Kickboxer. That way you can focus on a real opponent, who throws almost real punches. The punches still hurt, they just aren’t 100.

this is basic sparring 101.

JMO

no clip .. just go into any gym that does boxing or MT or MMA ect..
:slight_smile:

5

i just had brief look at the clips and I have one thing to say:

excellent work chaps.

I’m not into bickering with other Wing Chun guys. But, I am into simple encouragement. So, keep training hard, keep doing your thing and any flaws will become self evident.

I like your work ethic.

WWW

6

Keep 'em coming..

BV,

Like I said in the previous thread, I am enjoying th clips.

I’m curious as to what your guys think when they see themselves sparring. Are they able to identify areas where they think they can improve their game?

Keep up the good work.

7

Nice vid.:cool:

I would clairify by calling it WC(T,Tz, etc.) sparring, as you are restricting (on purpose or otherwize) techniques to the ranges trained in WC - kicking, punching and in-fighing/clinch. I didn’t see any takedown defence or work against boxing/kickboxing combinations. I did see some nice but brief examples of good WT clinch work.:wink:

8

[QUOTE=Big Vern;770609]http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8igqrpZ-_U
[/QUOTE]

Same as before.

I enjoyed all the feedback from previous clip, quite excited to see if we get 5 pages from this one.
One did notice that the disenters have no footage to post, is this because they are to busy winning major hardcore comps as the result of their ‘real full contact sparring’.

I’m sorry that I don’t have any video to uplink – but I don’t take my camcorder to the gym with me, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be so vain as to think what I was doing was particularly noteworthy. There are lots of tapes of really good people sparring.

Do call in when next in UK and see how you last against young Lol in the above clip, only 14 yrs old and quite small, but great control and focus echoing the respect and self discipline we promote @ the Gym.

BV.

Instead of waiting of us to beat our way to your door, and since you apparently like videotaping yourselves, why not take your camcorder down to a good MMA gym and show us how that looks?

9

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;770798]Instead of waiting of us to beat our way to your door, and since you apparently like videotaping yourselves, why not take your camcorder down to a good MMA gym and show us how that looks?[/QUOTE]More hypocracy from Terence. You are so critical of other people’s efforts, that you must be some sort of super-star. Please put your “humility” in check for a few moments and do what you are asking others to do. :rolleyes:

10

[QUOTE=Matrix;770831]More hypocracy from Terence. You are so critical of other people’s efforts, that you must be some sort of super-star. Please put your “humility” in check for a few moments and do what you are asking others to do. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

No hypocrisy (the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess) – these are indeed my views. And I don’t claim to be a “super-star” (Maybe you didn’t read where I said that my sparring wouldn’t be particularly noteworthy? Or that I suggested that instead of wanting to see my sparring, that he look at some really good fighters?). If people want to put up videos of themselves, that is their perogative. If they want to call playing around sparring, that too is their perogative. But in my view that practice shouldn’t be encouraged. There are enough videos of WCK people doing crappy stuff already. I find it amazing that the people who put up these clips, and the people who post positive comments about them, actually believe that stuff is good. I’m not surprised, just amazed.

11

I find it amazing that the people who put up these clips, and the people who post positive comments about them, actually believe that stuff is good. I’m not surprised, just amazed.

then show us what you believe to be"good stuff"
because so far you have put up a clip of some amateur boxers?
i actually agree with you (vaguely )on your point about it being a different game when strikes etc are at full intensity

For one example, the one guy kept kicking his opponent’s lead leg, over and over almost in slo mo, and his opponent did nothing to deal with it (because it didn’t hurt). One really good hard shot, and I can promise you that he would begin to deal with it, changing how he moved, how he stands, how he reacts, etc. which would require the “kicker” to change what he was doing. The game would change.

For one example, the one guy kept kicking his opponent’s lead leg, over and over almost in slo mo, and his opponent did nothing to deal with it (because it didn’t hurt). One really good hard shot, and I can promise you that he would begin to deal with it, changing how he moved, how he stands, how he reacts, etc. which would require the “kicker” to ch nge what he was doing. The game would change.

i agree with you here i really do
but you cant train like that every session
i would also draw your attention to bv 's introduction

Emphasis on control and mobility.

not Emphasis on going all out or full contact
judge it on this criteria
because this is their rules/criteria not yours
peace

12

BV,

once again i reiterate what i wrote previously. good work.

recording what you do in a session, irrespective of posting it on a public forum, is a superb way of evaluating and monitoring progress. you are able to view things from a 3rd part perspective.

keep doing what you are doing.

i am interested in your training methods, lineage, what types of things you work on. PM me if you are unwilling for your training to be evaluated by the court jester.

WWW

13

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;770871] I’m not surprised, just amazed.[/QUOTE]
You are just arrogant. Which is neither surprising, nor amazing. By the way, if you read the quotes posted you will see that I said I enjoyed the clips, since I do enjoy watching the dynamic between different training partners. I also enjoy watching amateur sports, but that doesn’t mean the level of play is necessarily at the highest level. I think they are trying to develop some basic skills in a more dynamic environment, rather than static drills which has some good points that should be encouraged.

Others had some constructive criticism to offer - you may want to look into the meaning of “constructive criticism”. You know that you can offer suggestions without just calling it crappy.

And you are a hypocrit because you demand videos from others and are unwilling to produce the same.

If you stand by your claim that your sparring is not noteworthy then why do you feel your criticisms are? :rolleyes:

14

Others had some constructive criticism to offer - you may want to look into the meaning of “constructive criticism”. You know that you can offer suggestions without just calling it crappy.

And you are a hypocrit because you demand videos from others and are unwilling to produce the same.

Bill is correct.

Those who criticise others’ performances when they are unwilling and probably unable to demonstrate how to do what they say should be done themselves are often, and IMO justifiably, regarded with derision and as deserving of ridicule.

IOW: Terence, you’re acting like a d1ck. Enough already.

15

Perhaps Terrence could be more constructive and kind in his criticism of other’s videos.. But at least he’s not using personal attacks or name calling…

When folks make observations, good or bad, about something, either the point made is valid or it is not.. Tact is another issue.. A person need not “prove” that he/she can perform any particular skill to make the point a valid one..

Statements and facts stand for themselves.. When you attack the person and not the idea you are employing an “Ad Hominem Attack”.

QUOTE:

==================================================
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
  3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

==================================================

Attack the idea if you can… Not the person…

16

[QUOTE=YungChun;770919]Perhaps Terrence could be more constructive and kind in his criticism of other’s videos.. But at least he’s not using personal attacks or name calling…
[/QUOTE]

I gave my constructive criticism in discussing “Sparring Clip #1”, so I didn’t feel the need to repeat it.

When folks make observations, good or bad, about something, either the point made is valid or it is not.. Tact is another issue.. A person need not “prove” that he/she can perform any particular skill to make the point a valid one..

You are exactly right. I don’t need to play the violin to recognize when it is being played poorly. :wink:

And, if we extend their “logic”, if they are going to comment too, even with a positive comment, shouldn’t they need to prove they can perform the particular skill too? How else do they know it is “good”?

Statements and facts stand for themselves.. When you attack the person and not the idea you are employing an “Ad Hominem Attack”.

Yes, ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. But beyond that, person’s using them if most often signalling, IMO, the inablity to offer solid reasons in support of their position (when I can’t refute what you say, I call you a bastid). So I don’t mind people resorting to name calling – for me, it’s the equivalent of them admitting they can’t respond intelligently.

Attack the idea if you can… Not the person…

It boils down to the “if you can” – if a person can attack the idea, can support their position with intelligent, rational reasons, can refute an assertion, they would. They only attack the person when they can’t successfully attack the idea. That’s why, as I said, ad hominem attacks are basically admissions that they got nothing.

17

or signs people are fed up with certain persons way of offering “constructive critism”

18

Any wonder why some people have seen fit to use the IGNORE button? :wink: :cool: :smiley:

19

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;770951]Any wonder why some people have seen fit to use the IGNORE button? :wink: :cool: :D[/QUOTE]

You don’t need a button to ignore people, just don’t respond.:wink:

20

[QUOTE=YungChun;770919]Attack the idea if you can… Not the person…[/QUOTE]Others have offered good constructive comments that can be taken away and used to improve the game being played, such as “watch your elbow position / flying-elbows” or " put enough power in your strikes to at least get a reaction from your partner" so that the sparring will be in a proper context.

The statement that something is “crappy” is not an “idea”. It’s just trash talk. The funny thing is that I agree with Terence to a point, it’s more a question of how he criticizes others, not the fact that he is.

You say “A person need not “prove” that he/she can perform any particular skill to make the point a valid one.” and yet Terence repeatedly asks others to go to a mma gym a vidoe tape a sparring session to “prove” their point and yet refuses to do the same. :rolleyes: So when I see this type of arrogance and hypocrasy, I call it such. You may see this as an “Ad Hominem Attack”, and he can make his little glib comments and that’s unfortunate. So I’ll just leave my comments as they stand and move on to the next topic.