Can someone define “senior citizen” for me please?
(Are we there yet?)
Originally posted by anerlich
Can someone define “senior citizen” for me please?
It refers to an “elderly person” or someone who is retired, usually at least 60 years old. Please note that we were talking about “getting closer to” that level, not actually being there. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Bill
Sounds fair, I got a bit over 10 years to go then. Though I can get my Seniors Card and insurance in about 5 …
Ah, so much to look forward to, er … what were you saying again? And where are my glasses …
A friend’s father, aged in his late 70’s at the time, was visiting Britain. He had been an Army boxing champ and a judoka since the 50’s. That’s boxing and grappling, in case anyone wasn’t paying attention …
Two muggers accosted him, he resisted. One ran away and he chased the other, walking stick in hand, into a public toilet where the would be mugger hid in a cubicle and cried for help until the cops arrived, the old guy cursing him and banshing the door with his stick.
You don’t have to turn into a feeble, brainless cripple as you age.
Originally posted by anerlich
Ah, so much to look forward to, er … what were you saying again?
You know what they say,…your memory is the 2nd thing to go.
Thanks for the story about your friend’s father. It’s a good one.
Bill
Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
crimsonking, obviously you do not know the meaning of “dead” vs alive. Obviously. Its not the technique that makes it dead or live. it’s the energy timing and motion performed while using the techniqe. if the students are REALLY trying to hit each other with real intent, and they get hit,…or they sucessfully defend,…the intent and unexpectedness is the key. If you disagree, I definitely want to hear your definition of dead and alive training…
Like i said, our understanding of the words “dead” and “alive” definitely seem to differ. Obviously, i dont know “the” meaning though. Anyway…
Ok so, energy, timing, motion, intent - all variables that can be well understood in chi sao, and yes, you can REALLY try to hit each other during chi sao. There are more productive ways of working in the chi sao environment, but still. I’d say that unexpectedness is really whats missing from the drill as you described.
As for use of “dead” and “alive” - again, uses of these terms will vary wildly, i’m sure kj would agree. My preferred use would be :
Dead = Training.
Alive = Learning.
Your use seem to be more along the lines :
Dead = Training.
Alive = Training with what you believe to be a slightly higher level of intensity and a slightly different intent on the part of the ‘attacker’.
So, getting back to the original point - this ‘isolated sparring’ your talking about it just a pretty regular, and crappy, application drill with gear on and a macho strut. This really doesnt sound much like the sparring that many good boxers, or as AndrewS pointed out, muay thai fighters do, which is (can be), regardless of intensity or intent, a really alive learning environment, albeit one which has no place in wing chun.
Terence
If you want to lose weight there is only one way: eat less calories and exercise more.
Wrong.
With fighting, regardless of our method (WCK, bjj, boxing, etc.) there needs to be the same general approach to development because …
Wrong.
go to a MMA gym or some other place where they actually fight and ask to begin a fight with one of them from the chi sao position
Avoiding the semantic detour kj is taking, i’ll assume that by “chi sao position” you’re referring to the poon sao platform for chi sao. This challenge should be no problem for someone with a good level of chi sao, and ability to control\destroy the opponent. If it is a problem - it’s a problem with your chi sao, either quantity or quality. Again, as soon as you say no gloves, the number of volunteers drops, then the no rules bit, and the numbers drop further…
Also - your continued insistence on “fighting” - what exactly are you referring to? Sport fighting is not the same as a real fight.
Your requirement for martial ability to be proven through fighting is flawed. If it is sports fighting you are referring to - that is not the same thing as a real fight. If it is real fighting you’re referring to - what context? Not many real fights are likely to happen between high level martial artists any time soon - and most of the rest of real fighting on the street is no big deal. There are exceptions of course - but there can be no objective proof of real fighting ability. The rest is faith.
crimsonking:
You’ve got to be kidding with this…
“This ‘isolated sparring’ your talking about it just a pretty regular, and crappy, application drill with gear on and a macho strut. This really doesnt sound much like the sparring that many good boxers, or as AndrewS pointed out, muay thai fighters do, which is (can be), regardless of intensity or intent, a really alive learning environment, albeit one which has no place in wing chun.”
Isolated application sparring drills ARE the precursor to the kind of sparring that boxers, Muay Thai fighters, etc…do.
They are one of the essential building blocks that lead to sparring - so that the fighter is prepared thoroughly to engage in free form sparring successfully.
And they have a place in ANY and ALL martial arts schools that are serious about learning how to fight.
crimonsonking, if you believe there is “no objective proof” of skill in “real fighting” (?), then how can one ever know whether or not any training that they have done was productive? Experience – the actual doing of the activity itself, in this case fighting – will show you both your improvement and where you still lack. Fighting is no different than any physical activity – we can get better at it by doing certain things, most importantly by doing the activity itself. It is no coincidence that all fighting arts (those where the practitioners actually fight as opposed to those that only think they can) follow the same training regimine – they will have a functional warm-up/conditioning part, followed by drills, then a focus on technique development, ending with fighting. This is true whether it is boxing, bjj, wrestling, kyokushikai, muay thai, MMA, etc. Dance classes, however, naturally follow a different training method. 
“Fighting” is not a venue or a specific condition but an environment (like the water is in swimming) characterized by 1) intensity (the level of attribute involvement, including skill, the variety of weapon variables, and degree if risk; 2) resistance; and 3) intent, the focus of the intensity and resistance).
The “challenge” I outlined may sound easy to you – well, why not try it then? It’s easy to say “I could fly if I jumped off the building” and a different thing to prove it. There are some of us who have taken the leap – that is, had that experience. Until you have that experience, any opinion you offer is in my view uninformed. Opinion is only as good as the evidence you have to back it up.
Regards,
Terence
Originally posted by t_niehoff
“Fighting” is not a venue or a specific condition but an environment (like the water is in swimming) characterized by 1) intensity (the level of attribute involvement, including skill, the variety of weapon variables, and degree if risk; 2) resistance; and 3) intent, the focus of the intensity and resistance).
Now this is useful!! Not definitive, but definitely useful. While my characterization of fighting would differ, it finally provides a stake in the ground about what you mean when you use the term.
FWIW (and just to give you ample opportunity to argue back at me ;)), I agree that all the elements you describe are essential at appropriate stages in one’s training. It is only in proportions that our views likely differ (e.g., appropriate ranges and degrees of risk).
Were I to apply my own definition of “fight,” which further encompasses intent and will to harm, maim, or kill, the risk would be too much to take routinely or lightly, and inconsistent with my purposes in training.
Regards,
- kj
KJ, A couple of things:
I’m not sure what it is you think I (or others) aren’t getting, but no worries in any event.
**This is a discussion on training methods – what we all need to do to develop greater fighting skill. Different people practice WCK or MAs for different reasons (health, cultural interest, etc.) and if fighting is not a concern of theirs then the discussion will be of little interest. If developing greater fighting skill is a concern, then we need to separate myths from truths. With regard to training, we evaluate it by results not “opinions” or “conjecture” or “extrapolations” or what we hope or would like to be true. So to know if our training has improved our fighting ability, we need to fight. And, you’ll see – as folks who do fight have proven over and over again – that real gains in fighting ability can only be made by making fighting part of one’s training. It’s that simple. Now if folks what to believe stories or myths about little old men and weaklings having extraordinary powers without actually fighting, I can’t stop them. But I can ask where they are! Helio is a little old man (90) that can still fight but he got to that point by fighting.
You do pose another interesting question regarding terms and usage. It’s our human tendency to assume a common understanding of common terms. Yet I suspect that if you polled a dozen or more people on what chi sau means to them, you’d likely get an interesting variety in the answers. Which brings me to your statement on “the chi sao position.” This phrasing would indicate that you may consider chi sau as essentially something in fact constrained to a “position.” Does that indeed reflect your view of the meaning and range of chi sau? And if so, what do you believe the chi sau position is?
**I’m merely pointing out that if you think chi sao is anything like fighting, then have a go with someone who actually fights and has some fighting skill and begin however you like (from some point of contact where you feel comfortable, for instance). Actually see for yourself by doing it. If your chi sao prepares you for fighting, then fighting should be an easy matter and you shouldn’t have a problem.
**BTW, one significant problem with not fighting as part of one’s training is that IME a person actually becomes a worse fighter through their continued chi sao training because they continually reinforce bad fighting habits, things that won’t work for them in a fighting environment, etc. (There is a lot of things that work in chi sao because it is not a fighting environment, and there are many, many things that one needs to “adjust” from chi sao to make functional in a fighting environment. Thus, good at chi sao does not mean good fighter. If you don’t believe that, go see for yourself.). The fighting is what allows a person to “tweak” their training, to get rid of the stuff that doesn’t work, make the adjustments in how they do things, concentrate on that which does work, etc., not to mention developing one’s attributes – for example, one doesn’t really develop “sensitivity” to a significant degree in chi sao since it is an intensity-dependent attribute. Think I’m wrong? Then everyone doing chi sao should have an easy time fighting as they have sensitivity and the poor fighter doesn’t! So while you may have great sensitivity at chi sao, that doesn’t mean you’ll have it at fighting.
Were I to apply my own definition of “fight,” which further encompasses intent and will to harm, maim, or kill, the risk would be too much to take routinely or lightly, and inconsistent with my purposes in training.
**My definition includes intent. Not all fights, including “streetfights” involve intent to maim or kill; most actually don’t. But all fights will include the intent to “pound” you or make you submit in some way – this is why we need to have that level in our training: because that is what we are learning to deal with. The major difference between a NHB and a street assault is mainly in the degree of risk I talked about.
Regards,
Terence
Terence
you mean the is no 90 year old flying chi master , **** you for bursting my bubble
i would challenge you to a fight but i fear the intent of my chi sau sensitivity might kill us both
great post man
CK writes:
>So, getting back to the original point - this ‘isolated sparring’ >your talking about it just a pretty regular, and crappy, >application drill with gear on and a macho strut. This really >doesnt sound much like the sparring that many good boxers, >or as AndrewS pointed out, muay thai fighters do, which is (can >be), regardless of intensity or intent, a really alive learning >environment, albeit one which has no place in wing chun.
Er, no, on a couple of points. Putting aside the fact that I don’t prefer to use the in-pak to break the plum, and please keep in mind that Dhira and I train together, and I know exactly the drill platform he’s talking about, this is precisely the sort of drill thai boxers do- as in I was using this platform (shucking and countering the double neck tie) on Wensday morning with a training partner who’s record up at Vut’s smokers is something on the order of 24-0-1 (+/- a couple), and his comment was ‘This is the stuff all the guys coming in from Thailand used to do 6 3 minute rounds of’.
Personally, I use the tan sequence from 3rd set SNT to frame the single neck tie off, to set up a spade palm and neck pulling hand, or blast out, and I train doing rounds of this with differring variables (i.e. +/- knees, hooks, uppercuts, takedown, one person trying to break the tie, etc), alternating with rounds of chi sao focusing on the skills being used in application. And, when I’m a real *******, I have the man out do some sled-dragging (Wensday’s fun little sequence).
Interestingly, an hour of this mix seems to produce much more improvement than an hour of just chi sao in all skills covered- better application, stance, and chi sao results.
Here is your fundamental misconception:
>Dead = Training.
>Alive = Training with what you believe to be a slightly higher >level of intensity and a slightly different intent on the part of >the ‘attacker’.
Alive= variability, intent, and ‘real’ timing, reducing the number of variables involved so that you’re working at the point where you can use ‘real’ time. Defending a bunch of jabs, then a bunch of crosses does not produce the same results as defending a bunch of either jabs or crosses, using one to set up the other, with some motion thrown in for fun.
Now, why doesn’t this training method have a place in Wing Chun?
Terence,
the intensity-dependence thing. I was training with sifu Emin a few weeks ago, and he was operating free and at fair speed. I was doing alright, surviving and trying to get some back. At the end, he commented that I was becoming reasonably relaxed in this situation, where I knew I was fairly safe, risking no more than a split lip, broken nose, or cracked rib, but that the next stage was to turn things up, and involve some real energy and intensity, so that I could learn to be relaxed and changeable there.
Knowing my own experience, I’d codify the intensity-dependence thing a bit further into intensity of the forces used and emotional/intentional intensity. Your reaction to and ability to deal with explosiveness, shock, and massive force are the same things used to deal with less extreme forces, yet training with less extreme forces does not prepare you well for the extreme stuff, unless you’ve dealt with it before and are training specifically to deal with them. Your own motion and your visual perception can further decay the attributes people seek through chi sao, and those attributes must hence be cultivated in situations of graded intensity and variability, with situations besides the static agreement of chi sao. Emotional intensity- the other person coming in doing whatever they please, looking to nail you changes the picture significantly- some people shine in the gym, and choke in the ring, others do beautifully in the ring but get KTFO by heavy handed British kickboxers. . .
The main differences between an NHB fight and a streetfight,are in an NHB fight you know someone’s gonna stop it if it gets ugly, while in a streetfight someone may rape the gut wound in your corpse (ok, a little exaggeration there). There’s a lot of psychological preparation for a ring fight; a ‘street’ fight is often sudden violence, and the ideal response is being able to turn ‘on’ quick. Living in that state of being able to go from having a quiet walk and a smoke to kicking someone’s head in, in under 20 seconds, is neither fun nor healthy, though at times in one’s life it may be necessary. It’s probably a lot healthier to walk around being confident that you can take that first punch and gather yourself calmly to respond, than constantly being a loaded gun waiting to break the next person who f*cks with you. At least, that’s what I prefer,
Later,
Andrew
Originally posted by AndrewS
[B]Alive= variability, intent, and ‘real’ timing, reducing the number of variables involved so that you’re working at the point where you can use ‘real’ time. Defending a bunch of jabs, then a bunch of crosses does not produce the same results as defending a bunch of either jabs or crosses, using one to set up the other, with some motion thrown in for fun.
Now, why doesn’t this training method have a place in Wing Chun? [/B]
I’m so confused! What I’m reading here does have it’s place in my Wing Chun.
First, within the “traditional training hall,” if you will, we call this “feeding hands.” Typically done by the instructor or at least by more experienced students for the benefit of less experienced students. It is not just an add-on new agey thing or something I invented - it is a method of training used by Leung Sheung and subsequently carried on by his students who now teach. It offers not only experience in practice, but the opportunity for coaching, commentary and analysis. And, like our chi sau at least, it has a wide and unpredictable range of speeds, variations, and intensities. The only thing it seems to lack - at least in potential - is sufficient hatred for one another. (Yes, it is NOT fighting.)
But that is only a fraction of the total picture. Among other things, we (being me and like minded others) make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can in wide manner of ways. We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering “non Wing Chun” style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our “database” as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety (which are not the same for everyone). I still have a hunch it’s different perspectives on the safety and risk factors which is at the heart of a lot of this.
I’m aware that not everyone incorporates these same elements into their practice. Other than begging the mercies of Mike Tyson, going to the “cage,” joining the Dog Brothers, picking random street fights, or other functional equivalents of throwing myself/ourselves (not knowing who the target of reproof really is) on a live grenade, then based on what you guys set forth I still fail to see what I’m significantly and reasonably missing (if anything). Other than enough time and health to actually do it all! Okay, and I don’t talk tough enough; coming across tough just isn’t my strong point. But I figure I can make up for some of that if I just talk on long enough … :p:D
I have to wonder, in the end, does it really matter where you’re getting certain types of training experiences as long as you’re getting what you need? I still maintain it’s up to the good student to take responsibility for their learning and to be resourceful. Which you guys (we all know which side of the imaginary fence we’re sitting on for the sake of debate, LOL) obviously do.
Hey, I may be thick, but at least it should be obvious that I’m trying to communicate and flesh something useful out here. Yeah, I’m probably still missing something, and it’s probably very obvious to some of you what that thing is. 
But there’s always room for thought. And we haven’t even broached the glass half full - half empty part of the discussion yet. 
Later!
- Kathy Jo
“It’s probably a lot healthier to walk around being confident that you can take that first punch and gather yourself calmly to respond, than constantly being a loaded gun waiting to break the next person who f*cks with you.” (AndrewS)
VERY TRUE!
The “emotional climate” training…(as Tony Bleuer puts it)…
is SO important - and SO overlooked.
And the kinds of training that this thread is about is a good start towards that “emotional” training. (ie.- isolated sparring drills).
Everything should be leading up to high intensity sparring that one can (emotionally) handle.
Then you know you’re truly prepared for the uncertainties and potential dangers of the real world.
Originally posted by AndrewS
Now, why doesn’t this training method have a place in Wing Chun?
I second that question.
KJ wrote:
. . .it is a method of training used by Leung Sheung and subsequently carried on by his students who now teach.
**Following tradition is fine if one wants to “preserve” a lineage but it doesn’t necessarily mean it promotes fighting skill (funny how there are no boxers preserving John L. Sullivan boxing isn’t it? I guess boxers aren’t concerned with “original” boxing or “preserving” a lineage.). The Gracies, for example, can point to their results in fighting against world-class, skilled fighters as evidence of how their training methods will develop greater fighting skill (as can boxers, wrestlers, muay thai fighters, etc. – refer to my post about how they all follow the same training approach); can your “lineage” do that? And I’m not trying to pick on any specific “lineage” – merely pointing out that just because anyone follows a specific training approach doesn’t mean it’s productive, or how productive it is. We determine that by looking to results. If your concern is to develop greater fighting skill (as opposed to preserving a lineage), then it is a simple thing to test whether you have developed greater fighting skill and to what extent or where you are lacking.
It offers not only experience in practice, but the opportunity for coaching, commentary and analysis. And, like our chi sau at least, it has a wide and unpredictable range of speeds, variations, and intensities. The only thing it seems to lack - at least in potential - is sufficient hatred for one another. (Yes, it is NOT fighting.)
**And that’s all great to build a foundation or beginning but by itself it will develop only marginal fighting skills. One can do that stuff for 40 years, just as they can stand on the side of the pool for 40 years practicing what they think it’s like to swim, but if they don’t get into the water they won’t make any substantial gains in being able to swim. You don’t need to believe me – it is a simple matter to test for yourself. Go to a NHB gym, like a Straightblast Gym, and ask to fight someone of the same gender, smaller than you, with less time in training than you and see how you fare.
But that is only a fraction of the total picture. Among other things, we (being me and like minded others) make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can in wide manner of ways. We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering “non Wing Chun” style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our “database” as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety (which are not the same for everyone). I still have a hunch it’s different perspectives on the safety and risk factors which is at the heart of a lot of this.
**Again, that’s great but will only take you a very limited way. Chi sao, the drill, works because it is a cooperative environment where both sides are “doing” WCK (just like lop sao is a cooperative drill that works because both sides are “doing” WCK). It is, in effect, a game of its own that can introduce and develop to a limited degree certain aspects of fighting but its very nature excludes a great deal of what is involved in fighting. How “good” you are at the game isn’t a reflection of how well you will fight. You can only appreciate this by actually fighting (with non-WCK people).
I’m aware that not everyone incorporates these same elements into their practice. Other than begging the mercies of Mike Tyson, going to the “cage,” joining the Dog Brothers, picking random street fights, or other functional equivalents of throwing myself/ourselves (not knowing who the target of reproof really is) on a live grenade,
**It’s a simple matter to make fighting part of one’s training – as my previous post pointed out, all fighters do it already. To think of it as “throwing yourself on a live grenade” is like a nonswimmer talking about “throwing yourself into watery death”. You can look at it that way, but you still need to get in the pool if you want to learn to swim. Or you can look at it as “this is the environment I want to become accustomed to dealing with” and jump in.
then based on what you guys set forth I still fail to see what I’m significantly and reasonably missing (if anything).
**It is precisely the fighting that will tell you what you are lacking (in being able to fight) and permits you to develop. You are presuming that your nonfighting drills have somehow prepared you to deal with a fighting environment, but what if you are wrong? Wouldn’t you rather learn that in the safety (since safety seems a recurring theme in your posts) of the gym or kwoon rather than on the street?
Other than enough time and health to actually do it all! Okay, and I don’t talk tough enough; coming across tough just isn’t my strong point.
**This isn’t “tough talk”, it is simply a matter of seeing that the I-can-learn-to-fight-without-actually-fighting mindset has never produced any person with any significant proven fighting skill (and stories, myths, conjecture, extrapolation, etc. is not proof) whereas the you-can-only-become-a-better-fighter-by-making-fighting-a-part-of-your-training approach has repeatedly produced demonstratable results.
I have to wonder, in the end, does it really matter where you’re getting certain types of training experiences as long as you’re getting what you need?
**But this begs the question of how does one know they are getting what they need? If fighting skills are what a person wants, how other than by fighting can a person determine if they are getting what they need from their training?
I still maintain it’s up to the good student to take responsibility for their learning and to be resourceful. Which you guys (we all know which side of the imaginary fence we’re sitting on for the sake of debate, LOL) obviously do.
**Our WCK teachers (boxing coaches, BJJ blackbelts, etc.) regardless of how “good” they are, don’t teach us to fight – they can’t. You can only learn that by yourself, by fighting (just as we must learn to swim by oursleves). All they can do is pass on the method and help you with pointers along the way.
Regards,
Terence
"Following tradition is fine if one wants to “preserve” a lineage but it doesn’t necessarily mean it promotes fighting skill (funny how there are no boxers preserving John L. Sullivan boxing isn’t it? I guess boxers aren’t concerned with “original” boxing or “preserving” a lineage)…
we make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can…We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering “non Wing Chun” style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our “database” as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety."
(Terence)
I suggest that people memorize this quote and repeat it to themselves on a daily basis - until it becomes so much a part of their being…that they just “live” it without even having to think about it anymore.
Great post, Terence.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
[B]"Following tradition is fine if one wants to “preserve” a lineage but it doesn’t necessarily mean it promotes fighting skill (funny how there are no boxers preserving John L. Sullivan boxing isn’t it? I guess boxers aren’t concerned with “original” boxing or “preserving” a lineage)…
we make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can…We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering “non Wing Chun” style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our “database” as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety."
(Terence)
I suggest that people memorize this quote and repeat it to themselves on a daily basis - until it becomes so much a part of their being…that they just “live” it without even having to think about it anymore.
Great post, Terence. [/B]
The last half of the quote was mine.
Regards,
- kj
Terence,
Thank you for clarifying that your specific notion of “fighting” is indeed something different from the isolated sparring Andrew and Dhira were apparently describing.
You are once again correct. I and no doubt many others do not have the compulsion to fight in the sense that you seem to apply the term. Nor flippant about the risks, ethics, and cost/benefits impacting the fuller context of life. I am indeed satisfied to “compromise” through a considered and synergistic amalgamation of “lesser” training methods and other life experiences. My aim is not to “prove” something, rather to improve as much as possible without what I consider unreasonable risks, or undue sacrifices in overall quality of life or personal values.
As as been discussed so many times, there is no method which can offer conclusive “proof” of one’s ultimate superiority in any and all situations; not even “fighting” can offer ultimate “proof,” but at best an increasing sense of probabilities. I am therefore further satisfied that the feedback I continuously seek and receive on my evolving but endless stream of shortcomings, is sufficient for continued improvement. I’m not in a hurry, only persistent.
If this type of approach somehow puts into question my or other’s seriousness or intelligence as martial artists, so be it. I don’t have as much compulsion or need of definitive and unequivocal proof as some like yourself, and am apparently more comfortable with reasonable degrees of uncertainty. Well considered and plausible evidence is sufficient for me to extrapolate what to work on next in the endless cycles of continuous improvement. Additionally, there are more than enough other benefits of practice to balance and compensate for a slower rate of development as well. Contrary to what some may say, it’s not a matter of taking things less seriously, it’s just taking them differently.
Just a healthily different perspective on things.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo