ok, you want some evidence of decent wing chun being applied in a way that is probably more akin to sport fighting?
have a look on youtube for Cesario Di Domenico of Andreas Hoffman’s weng chun. the guy is very good
all arguments ended.
i can hear Terence and Dale now, saying how it is despite wing chun and not because of wing chun…
[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;951575]With regards to wc as caveman fighting - does that also refer to the likes of rick spain? How about Terence?
Terence: in a way, knifefighter is dissing you. Even with all ur hardwork and fighting against competent fighters, he is implying wc won’t work…
So let’s say we all do suck and terence is the man. Terence, shouldn’t u stick up for yourself? For ur style? For wc brothers? Show knifefighter that wck can be respectable![/QUOTE]
Dale is absolutely right – and you should be asking yourself “why is what he is saying the case?” The answer is in two parts: (1) how WCK people are training (to fight), and (2) the other part is in what they are training to do.
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;951578]ok, you want some evidence of decent wing chun being applied in a way that is probably more akin to sport fighting?
have a look on youtube for Cesario Di Domenico of Andreas Hoffman’s weng chun. the guy is very good
all arguments ended.
i can hear Terence and Dale now, saying how it is despite wing chun and not because of wing chun…[/QUOTE]
For me, the bottom line for anyone is “(1) are they doing in fighting (2) what they train to do (3) as they train to do it?”
[QUOTE=goju;951536]coming froma style where you lay on the guy the whole time and twist his joint until you make him say unlce i hardly see how you have room to talk knifefighter?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, god forbid, I would train in a system that has thousands of examples of people using it against skilled opponents exactly the way it is trained. It’s much better to study a style filled with myths and misconceptions with next to no examples of it working the way it is trained and in which the practitioners can’t even agree on what it should look like in application.
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;951578]ok, you want some evidence of decent wing chun being applied in a way that is probably more akin to sport fighting?
have a look on youtube for Cesario Di Domenico of Andreas Hoffman’s weng chun. the guy is very good
all arguments ended.
[/QUOTE]
I found a couple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSAyIfcLgIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBszw6ic4mk
The fact is, that’s exactly how WC will look if you actually start using it against resisting opponents and you start to develop more realistic application and skill.
That’s exactly what I’ve been talking about all along… notice how you don’t see simultaneous blocks/strikes, no chi sao looking technique, no tan sao, lop sao and all the other theoretical b.s.
A perfect display of how WC would evolve under actual fighting circumstances.
You are right. All arguments ended.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;951629]Yeah, god forbid, I would train in a system that has thousands of examples of people using it against skilled opponents exactly the way it is trained. It’s much better to study a style filled with myths and misconceptions with next to no examples of it working the way it is trained and in which the practitioners can’t even agree on what it should look like in application.[/QUOTE]
yeah bjj had its share of mcdojoism
for al its talk its never been tested againsted a master of another style anyone has heard of
all the tma guys the gracies are sparring with in their so called challenge matches no one even knows who they are! lol and being that so many of the gracies are in california a treasure trove of wel known chinese japanese korea and korean masters it makes you wonder why they never challenged a known master
but of course they did once we have the kimura helio gracie fight and we all know how that turned out 
[QUOTE=goju;951653]yeah bjj had its share of mcdojoism
for al its talk its never been tested againsted a master of another style anyone has heard of
all the tma guys the gracies are sparring with in their so called challenge matches no one even knows who they are! lol and being that so many of the gracies are in california a treasure trove of wel known chinese japanese korea and korean masters it makes you wonder why they never challenged a known master[/QUOTE]
LOL… you can’t fight a TMA “master” when the masters have never fought a day in their lives.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;951659]LOL… you can’t fight a TMA “master” when the masters have never fought a day in their lives.[/QUOTE]
oh what a great excuse there dael
is that the same excuse the gracises used when they backed down from the gene lebbel match and the benny the jet one too? lol
how brilliant well of course choking out random guys off the street who are supposed to be practioners of other styles proves how efficent bjj is lol
Yeah, it would be nice to see what he (Terence) is doing
(Dale Franks/knifefighters’) response on another thread to my (Victors) talking about vids, and of course this includes my insistence that Terence finally post some vids of his own.
(Dale goes on) It’s very telling when the guys who post all the demo clips, but no sparring clips.
…
*** But Dale, I (Victor) posted some sparring vids several years ago SO WHY DONT YOU HOLD TERENCE TO THE SAME STANDARD?
You (Dale) keep talking about how wing chun people need to show us how they go about sparring/fighting, whatever - so therefore, what about this remark by Terence recently:
WCK is my primary art.
…
***You mean, Dale, that since you constantly demand that people who say this kind of thing show what they can do (because youve made it so clear that you think very little wing chun can actually work) - you mean to say that Terence is exempt from this?
Very strange and inconsistent, hummm :rolleyes:
…
THEREFORE, this needs repeating:
Anyone (like Terence) could conceivably spend months reading and rereading the words of Matt Thornton (or the posts of Dale Franks, for that matter) - and then decide to regurgitate all of it back on a wing chun forum in a way that is always scewered to say, in effect, “I tried wing chun, it has very little to offer, I NOW know how to get good at fighting, and if you disagree with anything I have to say, it’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about and haven’t experienced what I’ve experienced.”
But to date, Terence’s refusal to provide any VISUAL evidence whatsoever is a clear indication that he CAN’T back up his constant droll. He says that WCK is his primary art, but yet virtually everything he says suggests otherwise: because according to Terence, basically nothing in WCK actually works.
So I think it is very safe to assume three things about Terence:
1- He never learned that much wing chun to begin with.
2- For all his talk, he has very little skill in ANY martial art. (Otherwise he’d show it).
3- He wants to think that everyone else in WCK is in the same boat he is.
he fights with other guys with sticks in his mothers back yard he knows what hes talking about lol
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;951630]I found a couple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSAyIfcLgIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBszw6ic4mk
The fact is, that’s exactly how WC will look if you actually start using it against resisting opponents and you start to develop more realistic application and skill.
That’s exactly what I’ve been talking about all along… notice how you don’t see simultaneous blocks/strikes, no chi sao looking technique, no tan sao, lop sao and all the other theoretical b.s.
A perfect display of how WC would evolve under actual fighting circumstances.
You are right. All arguments ended.[/QUOTE]
you know what it is with you?
and i completely understand it - it makes perfect sense.
you dont believe something until you see it working. Fair enough
Kev Gledhill makes excellent posts about tan sau lop sau etc and their apparent redundancy in fighting. perhaps someone can link them?
like Victor ays - there is a whole world of bull **** in wck. but thats not all wck has to offer
if you have such a bs radar, then why did you stay in wck for 4-5 years?
also, IMHO opinion its not necessarily a perfect display - it is his interpretation of wck. he doesnt necessarily flank so much, and the only times they are unballanced are when they are knocked over! it is however, a very good example of wck working. oddly enough - even one of the great wck trolls on youtube, opticannon, has only good to say about him
i will have to study the videos again this evening (GMT!) and tell you if i see tan/lop etc. i should well imagine that 2 eyes see 2 very different things
simultaneous blocks/strikes also mean different things to different people. in all your ‘real world’ or even sport environment experience, have you never thrown a strike that connected and also blocked their strike? is that not simultaneous blocks/strikes? in my book it is. it may not be LSDD but it still is a simultaneous block/strike. even more so than LSDD in the true sense of the phrase
would you care to sure who you studied wck with? it may enlighten a lot of people on this board
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;951764]you know what it is with you?
and i completely understand it - it makes perfect sense.
you dont believe something until you see it working. Fair enough
Kev Gledhill makes excellent posts about tan sau lop sau etc and their apparent redundancy in fighting. perhaps someone can link them?
like Victor ays - there is a whole world of bull **** in wck. but thats not all wck has to offer
if you have such a bs radar, then why did you stay in wck for 4-5 years?
also, IMHO opinion its not necessarily a perfect display - it is his interpretation of wck. he doesnt necessarily flank so much, and the only times they are unballanced are when they are knocked over! it is however, a very good example of wck working. oddly enough - even one of the great wck trolls on youtube, opticannon, has only good to say about him
i will have to study the videos again this evening (GMT!) and tell you if i see tan/lop etc. i should well imagine that 2 eyes see 2 very different things
simultaneous blocks/strikes also mean different things to different people. in all your ‘real world’ or even sport environment experience, have you never thrown a strike that connected and also blocked their strike? is that not simultaneous blocks/strikes? in my book it is. it may not be LSDD but it still is a simultaneous block/strike. even more so than LSDD in the true sense of the phrase
would you care to sure who you studied wck with? it may enlighten a lot of people on this board[/QUOTE]
apparently it was robert chu aka chusauli
No, it wasn’t Robert.
o my mistake. sorry robert!
The stand up looked very Muay Thai to me but that is just my inexperienced eye.
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;951764]simultaneous blocks/strikes also mean different things to different people. in all your ‘real world’ or even sport environment experience, have you never thrown a strike that connected and also blocked their strike? is that not simultaneous blocks/strikes? in my book it is. it may not be LSDD but it still is a simultaneous block/strike. even more so than LSDD in the true sense of the phrase[/QUOTE]That reminds me of something Wan Kam Leung wrote … to paraphrase … lin da dai siu is better than lin siu dai da.
Just a different mental focus perhaps but may give you different results.
[QUOTE=CFT;951773]The stand up looked very Muay Thai to me but that is just my inexperienced eye.
That reminds me of something Wan Kam Leung wrote … to paraphrase … lin da dai siu is better than lin siu dai da.
Just a different mental focus perhaps but may give you different results.[/QUOTE]
WSL thinking i guess (not to say its not in different lines, but wasn’t a prominent feature of my previous Joseph Cheng lineage)
i guess that LDDS is the appropriate Cantonese term, unfortunately i know very little Cantonese :o
The “siu” in “lin siu dai da” means to dissipate, so in dissipating an attack you carry your own attack (da).
I think (my interpretation) of what Kevin Gledhill posts is that the primary focus is attack - the “siu” (dissipation) comes as a consequence of the attack via the position of the elbows/forearms. This seems more like “lin da dai siu”.
[QUOTE=CFT;951784]The “siu” in “lin siu dai da” means to dissipate, so in dissipating an attack you carry your own attack (da).
I think (my interpretation) of what Kevin Gledhill posts is that the primary focus is attack - the “siu” (dissipation) comes as a consequence of the attack via the position of the elbows/forearms. This seems more like “lin da dai siu”.[/QUOTE]
as i understand it, KG uses the attack as the defence. and it is as a consequence of the attack that it happens true. but i think i’m right in saying that this is a deliberate consequence
we are taught to punch, for example, the same way in which KG describes. Although i have never been specifically told that the motion in the tan motion, although once it was pointed out is was very clear to me! same idea, just different teaching methods i guess
someone else on this board also pointed out in a pm to me yesterday what the ‘spiral energy’ Hendrik often talks of is. we do it and again, the only difference was we had never had it described in that way. i guess we had the action, just not the description (simplifying the art even more? Possibly)
my initial point was however, that one wck is ‘no wasted movements’ why do two movements when one will suffice?
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;951757]
***You mean, Dale, that since you constantly demand that people who say this kind of thing show what they can do (because you’ve made it so clear that you think very little wing chun can actually work) - you mean to say that Terence is exempt from this?[/QUOTE]
I don’t need to see his vids because I know that what he says about training is right. The fact that he doesn’t post clips doesn’t make him wrong in his views. I know because I have been out there doing the same things he says one should be doing. I see people doing what he is saying can be done all the time.
The reason I need to see clips from you guys is that you are proposing things, that in my experience, rarely happen the the way you guys think they will happen. So, in this case, since I don’t have my own evidence that lends support to your views, I need to see SOME evidence from somewhere.
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;951793]someone else on this board also pointed out in a pm to me yesterday what the ‘spiral energy’ Hendrik often talks of is. we do it and again, the only difference was we had never had it described in that way. i guess we had the action, just not the description (simplifying the art even more? Possibly)[/QUOTE]Can you share that info in another thread?
my initial point was however, that one wck is ‘no wasted movements’ why do two movements when one will suffice?
I agree. Makes me question all the multi-move hand trapping that I see in videos.