Terence, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Yes it will look different but it will not look like bad boxing…
The flaw in your theory is that you completely ignore something called PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE. You don’t go from A to Z, there ARE steps in-between and in WCK there are many steps. WCK is trained from the inside out. Love it or leave it!
Some of the folks I am working with now are challenged to perform a good pak sao in a drill or execute 10 good punches in a row. These folks are the ones that people spend hours with in the kwoon trying to ‘bring them along’ should they be thrown into a sparring situation (run) when they can barely punch (stand)? If your answer is yes then we are not seeing the same WCK picture. Indeed some folks might be better off training some Reality Based Self Defense Training – Oh and Christ they don’t spar there either… But these folks want the WCK so it will be a long road.
First of all anyone who knows the system should know when and how the system traditionally introduces combat. Now, today most schools have sparring. Whether it is good sparring or not is another question, but most schools these days have it and use it as a tool; and there are many ways to use it in training.
Personally I think, ‘sparring’ WCK vs. WCK is too narrow to be of much use. If a WCK student is ready and wants fighting experience then he/she would be far better off fighting/sparring with people from other styles. Now you can simulate that in class but you are limited by who you have and what they do and how good they are.
Skilled fighters? THAT is a bunch of bull because everyone will have a different idea of what that means; it’s totally subjective – most of the many hardcore sport fighters have no hands IMO so whose skilled a Pro? My buddy Bob?
Wrong!
First of all some students will be able to fight before they walk in your kwoon. They might be of any persuasion. These students have already been fighting and probably still are sparring. These students will often be able to apply WCK elements without and before any sparring, sparring drills or fighting in class.
To some extent we can only get as good as those we have to work with and challenge us. Having WCK vs. WCK sparring to me is the most useless kind of training for WCK people, better to just work on chi sao or chi gerk, that’s what your brothers and sisters are there for. To get valid sparring or fighting experience we need to fight what isn’t WCK. So we need to go outside the system and away from the people we work with everyday to gain useful experience and find new weaknesses in our kung fu. This is a long hard journey that simply isn’t needed or desired by all students; Period.
YungChun wrote:
The flaw in your theory is that you completely ignore something called PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE. You don’t go from A to Z, there ARE steps in-between and in WCK there are many steps. WCK is trained from the inside out. Love it or leave it!
**You misunderstand the whole idea of progressive resistance – it is progressive doing the activity itself, in other words, fighting using WCK’s method. By boxing (getting in the ring and sparring) better and better boxers (progressive resitance), you become better. How do you use “progressive resistance” to become a better basketball player? By breaking basketball down into “baby steps” or by simply teaching the fundamentals, drilling them, and then playing basketball? “Progressive resistance” is simply part of the natural process of doing a physical activity itself, whether basketball or boxing or WCK.
Skilled fighters? THAT is a bunch of bull because everyone will have a different idea of what that means; it’s totally subjective – most of the many hardcore sport fighters have no hands IMO so whose skilled a Pro? My buddy Bob?
**Fighting skill (level) isn’t subjective, any more than being skilled in basketball or boxing isn’t subjective. The problem you have is you are trying to judge skill at basketball without every playing basketball or skill in boxing without getting in the ring or skill in WCK without fighting – it can’t be done. It has nothing to do with “having a different idea of what that means” (this statement alone proves you are a nonfighting theoretican). In fact, it has nothing to do with any idea at all – it is a physical performance level and that can be easily demonstated.
Matrix wrote:
Terence, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Yes it will look different but it will not look like bad boxing…
**Functional methods tend to agree. If one uses their WCK in “boxing range” (punching range) it will look like boxing, and so will any art – the demands of range will require it. If one uses their WCK at kicking and punching range, it will look like kickboxing – the demands of range require it. My expression of WCK doesn’t take place, for the most part, in those ranges, and so it doesn’t look like boxing or kickboxing. I’m not saying my expression is the best way or the only way or the correct way, just that the demands of range determine what our fighting will look like, not our method or style.
There is a progression in the system; it’s there for a reason. If you don’t agree with it or understand its value then don’t train it. I think the progression is correct.
As I said most students take time to develop the skills the tools the concepts. If you can’t perform the task under a little stress you won’t be able to do it under the stress of FC sparring. So you get there in steps. This is not that complex an idea - there are steps. Again if you don’t agree with it then don’t train it or teach it.
I could care less about basketball.
Fighting skill will be subjective in any competition where rules exist. Fighting skills are measured in your Reality Fighting by the rules of the event. A K1 fighter might defeat a NHB fighter in one venue and loose in another. How good a fighter in what venue? Challenge matches? You doing a lot of those are you? Sparring in class against whom and under what rules? You judge your killing ability by how often you tap your buddy in class? How do we measure who is how good? Does everyone go street fight everyone else and we all get a number?
I’m a non fighter?
What does that mean?
That I don’t spar? I started MA in a hard contact karate school. Did you?
That I don’t roll around on the ground three times a week with someone in pajamas? Do you?
That I don’t street fight regularly? Do you?
If it means having a real boxer attack me and working against someone who’s has better hands than most of what I see in sport fighting then I am. Do you? I’d bet he’d KO you in an instant.
I seriously question your understanding of the system and your audacity to comment on others abilities or training. By doing so you bring into question your ability buddy.
I’m open to anything that produces results. You said “there are many ways to develop skill” – that sounds great, but where are the results that prove it? There’s only one way to become a good swimmer, and the folks that actually swim know what it is. The landswimmers theorize about “the many ways.”
Terence,
If you had more proof of results you words would carry more meaning. So for now many people here are on different paths to attaining fighting skill and without proof that your method is not only the way but even better than others decribed here your words are no more powerful or meaningful than anyone elses. You can call it dry land flying on your next post just to mix things up.
originally posted by LawrenceofIdaho
If I used a less stressful test, I might just be fooling myself.
Lawrence your statements underscores the value of proper teaching with proper training.
Without proper guidance/teaching you might be doing something right or you might not then if you add a stress test to that with a partner that might know a thing or two about fighting or might not you 2 together might discover a few things or you might not. The value of knowing what you are training and why you are doing it can never be underestimated. The first order of the day is understanding the difference of what is failing you and why if your stress test fails is it because of your inablity to apply what you learned or is it that what you learned was faulty to begin with, if what you are being taught is faulty from the beginning there is no amount of stress testing in the world that can correct or help you overcome this inherent problem.
- First you learn the principle.
- Secondly you must apply the concept.
- Thirdly you must experience the application.
- Then you can fight.
When a person just fights fights fights without 1,2,&3 that is fine as long as we understand that it is not wing chun. The difference is as apparent as splashing around in the shallow end of a pool or wearing a gold medal for the olympic 100 meter freestyle both may consider themselves swimmers but there is somewhat of a visible difference when it’s time to perform.
I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. WC has tools at all required ranges. If you think that WC should look like western boxing within some ranges, that’s your prerogative. I’m not saying boxing isn’t effective, because I think it is. It’s just that I’m looking for something else, and I don’t see it…and no, it’s not a perfect Bong Sau or Tan Sau or whatever. It’s not about “shapes” as some good people I know, like to say, or even specific techniques. It’s something more fundamental than that.
Unfortunately your posts up to this point have made me think that you believed otherwise. It’s refreshing to see that your view is not so restrictive.
Peace,
YungChun,
Exactly. Here lies the fundamental distinction that I think needs to be understood.
The clip from Estonia really shows this well. These guys are flailing away, one guy tends to dominate based purely on brute strength, the other guy takes a pounding and survives possible brain damage. What is learned through this exercise? Nothing that we all didn’t learn in grade school.
Why ask someone to spar when they can’t even through a proper strike or don’t know any basic footwork. It’s like asking a baby that is learning to crawl to run the 100 meters on a track. You can push a prod all you like, but the natural progression must take place. Unfortunately it takes time…
It’s not that the idea of progression is complex. I think it’s because people seem to want results in the short-term and are willing to sacrifice long-term benefits to achieve that goal. So they spar sooner, rather than later, because they ‘feel like’ they’re actually fighting. It’s a symptom of the fast-food generation.
Most would rather drive through and pick up a combo ( super-sized of course) then take the time to cook a heathier meal. Never mind the long-term implications, at least I’m satisified right now. Tomorrow will take care of itself, right?? :rolleyes:
I must also point out that the extreme-opposite position is equally flawed. You can’t do forms forever either, and expect to see improvement. I think that there is solid middle ground. As it goes in many things in life, timing is everything.
Bill,
Very well Said!
Thanks Tony…
I’m no expert, but I’ve seen a lot of different approachesover the years.
Like a fine wine, you can’t rush the process or you end up with vinegar.
It’s rather amusing that I keep hearing about “proper teaching” or what is "good WCK"or whatever – everyone has an opinion of what is “correct”. My point is rather simple: where is the evidence that supports your view? What the theoreticians offer in support of their views is always theorectical conjecture (typically based on hearsay); if ever they physically demonstrate their POV it’s always in a cooperative environment (which includes touching hands or gor sao), or they rely on stories/history.
Matrix and others have a belief that WCK should look a certain way in application. Show us the evidence of that – someone that can make it work like you believe it should against skilled opposition. Then I’ll take your views seriously. Of course, I know you can’t because that view is mistaken. Others, like Canglong, believe they have the “proper” way to train. Fine, then it should produce results. Show us evidence of that – someone that has developed skills they can use successfully against a skilled fighter (and not in gor sao against some other unskilled WCK guy). Then I’ll take your views seriously. Of course, I know you can’t because your view is mistaken.
For all of you, go to a good local NHB/MMA gym and have a go (fight) with someone with half the amount of training time you’ve put in and see what happens. See for yourself firsthand whether you can do what you beleive should work, see if your training methods produce results, etc. Those of us who have done this sort of thing have opinions based on firsthand experience; those that haven’t had that experience have opinions based on theory or hearsay or some other nonesense. Of course, I know most of you won’t do this – and I know why. We have a saying here: when you don’t have skills, all you’re left with is excuses.
All fine and dandy Terence, but where is your Proof? You say all of this but don’t back it up yourself. In this modern day why can’t you show us, or is this beyond you and your superior training methods. You always ask for evidence from other’s but never supply when it is asked of yourself.
There are something’s that we agree upon, and I think everyone on here realizes the importance of realistic training, you call it fighting, others call it sparring, names are names, but the point is you do have to test your understanding of the WC you are learning and this has to be in a environment that is suitable enough to provide this experience for someone. But once that is done, how often do you have to keep on “Testing” your self? I’m not talking about a scenario where you eventually gain skills in WC, have tested it in sparring and then quit all together. Of course if this was the case your skills will deteriorate for sure. What I’m talking about is that once the skills are in you, they have been tested and reinforced, isn’t it easier to maintain them, by doing less of everything you did before to gain them, than it was to actually gain the skill? For me it has, I know I am more skilled at the Art and better able to defend myself than I was 5, 10 years ago. Would I increase that skill if I sparred and Chi-sao’d more? Yes for sure, no argument there, but for me I am satisfied with the skills I have and what they will do for me.
James
sihing wrote:
All fine and dandy Terence, but where is your Proof? You say all of this but don’t back it up yourself. In this modern day why can’t you show us, or is this beyond you and your superior training methods. You always ask for evidence from other’s but never supply when it is asked of yourself.
**The proof is in how all proven skilled fighters (everyone that steps up and fights), regardless of their style or method, train. Look at any boxer, MMAist, muay thai fighter, BJJ fighter, etc. and they all train following the same basic model (that I’m advocating). What we don’t see is anyone with any proven fighting skill (who has stepped up and fought good people) that follows a different model. Why is that? Simple, because they don’t exist. Some will argue that they do exist – great fighters behind closed doors – but how can they say they are great fighters if they’ve never fought anyone skilled?
There are something’s that we agree upon, and I think everyone on here realizes the importance of realistic training, you call it fighting, others call it sparring, names are names, but the point is you do have to test your understanding of the WC you are learning and this has to be in a environment that is suitable enough to provide this experience for someone. But once that is done, how often do you have to keep on “Testing” your self?
**You’re missing the point – your question is like saying “OK, we all agree you need to get in the water at some point to ‘test your understanding of swimming’ but how often do you need to do that?” First, it has nothing to do with “understanding”; it has to do with ablilty (no boxer talks about “understanding” his boxing – these very expressions reveal your perspective is theoretical and knowledge-based). Second, “sparring” or fighting is the WCK: WCK is in the application (the doing, the performing). If you are not fighting, you’re not doing WCK. WCK is fighting using the WCK method (strategies and tools). How often do boxers need to get in the ring?
I’m not talking about a scenario where you eventually gain skills in WC, have tested it in sparring and then quit all together. Of course if this was the case your skills will deteriorate for sure. What I’m talking about is that once the skills are in you, they have been tested and reinforced, isn’t it easier to maintain them, by doing less of everything you did before to gain them, than it was to actually gain the skill?
**You can’t “maintain” WCK skills without fighting, i.e., without using them.
For me it has, I know I am more skilled at the Art and better able to defend myself than I was 5, 10 years ago. Would I increase that skill if I sparred and Chi-sao’d more? Yes for sure, no argument there, but for me I am satisfied with the skills I have and what they will do for me.
**It’s fine to be satisfied with what you have. When I hear folks say “I know”, it always begs the question: how do you know?
**And as an aftertought: I don’t care how anyone trains or does their WCK – who am I to tell you how it should be done? My perspective is that if you can make it work, then great! But folks need to realize that loads of crap works against poorly skilled people (especially those with poor attributes); that’s why it is important to try it against skilled fighters. Crap won’t work against them. I offered a link to the Estonian WT guys – these are folks, and there are others, that are actually doing WCK (fighting with WCK). Perhaps they are not doing it at a high level (yet), but they are at least doing WCK.
I’m sorry, but my BS meter is going off here.
First off, I readily and heartily acknowledge, along with most on this board, that training in WCK or any martial art must involve free-form non pre-arranged fighting or sparring to realistically develop any martial skill, which is supposedly at least one of the main points of training in a martial art. I even acknowledge, accept, and embrace that NHB fighting and training has changed the face of martial arts since the early 90’s, and that the ground game and grappling skills have grown to the proportion they can’t be ignored in martial arts.
However, statements like this, …
**The proof is in how all proven skilled fighters (everyone that steps up and fights), regardless of their style or method, train. Look at any boxer, MMAist, muay thai fighter, BJJ fighter, etc. and they all train following the same basic model (that I’m advocating).
when asked for backup of a person’s skills and expertise in continuously criticizing anyone who they feel doesn’t train realistically is, as the only other amateur fighter with a record on this forum quoted “theoretical nerd blather”.
Let me get this straight. You’re saying that because you order PPV UFC events, have training tapes by Frank Shamrock that you and some students imitate, and yourself cross-train in BJJ and Muy Thai (without proven skills in either), that somehow YOUR method of training that you advocate, or YOUR opinion about how others train is somehow worth more than anyone else’s on this forum?
That is completely laughable. Please enlighten me on how that method of training NHB is different than someone picking up a couple of Yip Man videos off the internet, and opening a school saying they train “in the same model” that Yip Man trained. I’m curious.
Even if I concede all of your points you make incessantly, the bottom line to your argument really should be that the only one qualified to have an opinion on realistic training on this forum would be the only one who you can find an NHB record for anywhere - that’s Knifefighter - Dale Frank, who is 1-1 in Kage Kombat events - a small NHB circuit. So dial back your rhetoric and run your arguments through him for a while for truth in marketing’s sake.
Everyone, let’s all say at once:
WE PROMISE TO TRAIN REALISTICALLY 
Sorry if I’m harshing, but to say something positive there were aspects of your Estonia vids you posted I liked - the consistent sparring mentality promoted. If I lived there, and had to choose between the WT school with that marketing and the one next door with the video of the serene dude in the full lotus position, you’d probably see vids of me in headgear beating on someone with Metallica in the background (with of course a serene look on my face 
)
Rgds,
Dave
"Let me get this straight. You’re saying that because you order PPV UFC events, have training tapes by Frank Shamrock that you and some students imitate, and yourself cross-train in BJJ and Muy Thai (without proven skills in either), that somehow YOUR method of training that you advocate, or YOUR opinion about how others train is somehow worth more than anyone else’s on this forum?
That is completely laughable. Please enlighten me on how that method of training NHB is different than someone picking up a couple of Yip Man videos off the internet, and opening a school saying they train “in the same model” that Yip Man trained. I’m curious.
Even if I concede all of your points you make incessantly, the bottom line to your argument really should be that the only one qualified to have an opinion on realistic training on this forum would be the only one who you can find an NHB record for anywhere - that’s Knifefighter - Dale Frank, who is 1-1 in Kage Kombat events - a small NHB circuit. So dial back your rhetoric and run your arguments through him for a while for truth in marketing’s sake.
Everyone, let’s all say at once:
WE PROMISE TO TRAIN REALISTICALLY."
…
DAVE (WAYFARING):
Dude…that was one helluva post !!!
Terence,
Please re-read my post. I clearly said “…and no, it’s not a perfect Bong Sau or Tan Sau or whatever. It’s not about “shapes” as some good people I know, like to say, or even specific techniques.” Once again you have missed the mark. You ask for evidence, and yet you provide none. You call some of us theoreticians and yet you’ve offered nothing but fighting theory yourself. Interesting…
You ask for evidence, and yet you provide none. You call some of us theoreticians and yet you’ve offered nothing but fighting theory yourself. Interesting…
Bill,
He does it at least once a day by my count. One thing no one can take away from Terence is his consistency for contradiction.
I stand corrected.
Thank you Tony.
Ah, you already admitted in a post last year that you sucked anyways, so why listen to you in the first place…
James