If you’re not teaching and practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting, then you are teaching people to fail.
That would depend on what is the goal of what you are teaching.
In regards to fighting, yes, no doubt.
Although there is much to be said about bringing something “different to the table”.
If someone else were saying this, I would probably agree 85%. But, since, niehoff has such a narrow view. I would have to guess that what he suggests, is just as likely to produce failures.
You’re 100% correct, if you can’t produce and a technique breaks down consistently while under pressures (as a master) and you have to modify it drastically to make it work into something that you never taught or something that was never taught too you…
And doing this over and over again to the point that the system is not identified at all within a 10 min joust with someone…
And still walk away calling it wing chun or whatever, it’s just is a shame that people fall for it…
Some people modify their own system to make it work, to the point that it looks like stuff you learn in boot camp (hand to hand) and not wing chun.
At least not the way they originally learned it and that’s a major problem…
Ali Rahim.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;979843]If you’re not teaching and practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting, then you are teaching people to fail.[/QUOTE]
Teaching people to ‘be hit’ and ‘play dead’ is all part of demonstrations and general practise in ALL Martial Arts.
What you hope to accomplish here is anyones guess T. Fighting fighting fighting! Each to their own I suppose… :rolleyes:
Why is it that boxers, BJJ, MT, etc. are able to “look” in fighting like they do in training? It’s because what they teach and practice doing is what they are already doing in fighting/sparring. If you find a way to pass the guard, for example, and it works consistently for you, you teach it and then practice it just like you do it. And viola’ – it looks just like how you fight!
Ask a boxer or MT or BJJ or etc. to actually do in sparring what they are teaching and they ahve no problem. Why? Because what they are teaching is ALREADY what they are doing in sparring.
On the other hand, suppose you are teaching things you can’t do in sparring (which begs the question of how you can really teach it) or haven’t seen others do in sparring – then by definition you are teaching things that are at the very least unproven and probably not sound.
My view is that “If you’re not teaching and practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting, then you are teaching people to fail” should be our standard.
To quote the DBMA and what should be the mantra of any MA teacher:
You see it taught, you see it fought.
You’re correct once again,
Wing Chun can also look real good when it’s real. Most people are just to lazy to take that full journey and will deviate for instant gratification, only concerned with reputation and being down with association…
Ali Rahim.
Why is it that boxers, BJJ, MT, etc. are able to “look” in fighting like they do in training? It’s because what they teach and practice doing is what they are already doing in fighting/sparring. If you find a way to pass the guard, for example, and it works consistently for you, you teach it and then practice it just like you do it. And viola’ – it looks just like how you fight!
Ask a boxer or MT or BJJ or etc. to actually do in sparring what they are teaching and they ahve no problem. Why? Because what they are teaching is ALREADY what they are doing in sparring.
On the other hand, suppose you are teaching things you can’t do in sparring (which begs the question of how you can really teach it) or haven’t seen others do in sparring – then by definition you are teaching things that are at the very least unproven and probably not sound.
My view is that “If you’re not teaching and practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting, then you are teaching people to fail” should be our standard.
have to agree with you on this one. good post.
I am still trying to figure out whether or not Niehoff believes that sport fighting equates to street fighting. I think that he does. Most if not all of the skills used in a ring will translate into the street setting, but one needs to have a wider skill range than what the ring teaches if you plan on using your skills in the street. Also, ring fighting isn’t necessarily the most efficient, safest, or legal way to deal with a threat on the street.
There is a most efficient way to fight in a ring and there is a most efficient way to dust chumps. There is overlap but they aren’t the same techniques. Although, the same attributes are needed. I am not trying to disparage the ring arts because ring fighting is an important component of real fighting. I never have and with very few exceptions I do not foresee ever giving an instructor’s rank to someone who has not put forth decent showings in the ring.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;980049]I am still trying to figure out whether or not Niehoff believes that sport fighting equates to street fighting. I think that he does. Most if not all of the skills used in a ring will translate into the street setting, but one needs to have a wider skill range than what the ring teaches if you plan on using your skills in the street. Also, ring fighting isn’t necessarily the most efficient, safest, or legal way to deal with a threat on the street.
[/QUOTE]
I think approaching things from a street vs. sport perspective is a mistake in that the focus of the question is wrong. Our FOCUS should be on acquiring and developing realistic fighting skills. Those skills can be used anywhere, in any realistic environment. HOW we use those skills – our tactics – will change depending on the circumstances, including whether I am attacked on the street or am sparring in the ring.
There is a most efficient way to fight in a ring and there is a most efficient way to dust chumps. There is overlap but they aren’t the same techniques. Although, the same attributes are needed. I am not trying to disparage the ring arts because ring fighting is an important component of real fighting. I never have and with very few exceptions I do not foresee ever giving an instructor’s rank to someone who has not put forth decent showings in the ring.
I also think looking at things from a what-is-the-most-efficient-way perspective is wrong (that’s theoretical thinking). Instead, I think we need to look at things from a pragmatic perspective – what sorts of things can - and more importantly, do - I regularly and consistently pull off (what are high percentage and low risk)?
Techniques are examples of the skills in action. As I said above, our skills are universal (we use them whereever and whenever we fight), but the tactics (how we use them) depends on the circumstances.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;980082]
I also think looking at things from a what-is-the-most-efficient-way perspective is wrong (that’s theoretical thinking). Instead, I think we need to look at things from a pragmatic perspective – what sorts of things can - and more importantly, do - I regularly and consistently pull off (what are high percentage and low risk)?[/QUOTE]
I love it. Tell me that I am wrong only to rephrase what I just said. That’s a gas.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;980082]
Techniques are examples of the skills in action. As I said above, our skills are universal (we use them whereever and whenever we fight), but the tactics (how we use them) depends on the circumstances.[/QUOTE]
True but incomplete. Although, it really doesn’t matter. I am sure that you have never been in a street fight or done any bouncing. Everything that you are saying rings hollow on the matter.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;980086]I love it. Tell me that I am wrong only to rephrase what I just said. That’s a gas.
Although, it really doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not. I am sure that you have never been in a street fight or done any bouncing. Everything that you are saying rings hollow on the matter.[/QUOTE]
If you look at your initial post, you said: “I am still trying to figure out whether or not Niehoff believes that sport fighting equates to street fighting. I think that he does.” So I took the time to explain my viewson that subject.
You complained in an earlier discussion that I was talking semantics, and I tried to explain (perhaps not very well) that it wasn’t semantics but something more. My view is that we won’t get the right answers asking the wrong questions. Street vs. sport is a wrong question. It leads us nowhere, and can only help confuse the matter.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;979868]Why is it that boxers, BJJ, MT, etc. are able to “look” in fighting like they do in training? s [/QUOTE]
ac tually thats not always true ive seen plenty of countdown to ufc episodes where the show the figthers throwing crisps neat combos with their hands up during training and pad work and when they fight they are swinging wildly and leaving their hands down:D
Street versus sport is a natural dichotomy because of the etiquette, rules, and Laws that govern. In addition, the average skill of the fighters whom one is facing is quite different between the street and sport. Finally, your your own goals matter (self-defense, bouncing, police, etc).
All of these factors and more contribute to different sets of techniques and skills being the most effective, efficient, or “pragmatic”.
[QUOTE=goju;980089]ac tually thats not always true ive seen plenty of countdown to ufc episodes where the show the figthers throwing crisps neat combos with their hands up during training and pad work and when they fight they are swinging wildly and leaving their hands down:D[/QUOTE]
When those guys are training, they are “practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting”, whether they have internalized that training yet is something else. The other aspect is conditioning. I can tell you from lots of personal experience that when you are exhausted, your training can go out the window. It’s fair to say, I think, that your level of conditioning is the limit of your performance ability.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;980092]When those guys are training, they are “practicing things that you see working consistently in sparring/fighting”, whether they have internalized that training yet is something else. The other aspect is conditioning. I can tell you from lots of personal experience that when you are exhausted, your training can go out the window. It’s fair to say, I think, that your level of conditioning is the limit of your performance ability.[/QUOTE]
how do you explain when they do it with in the first minute of a fight then? lol
it has nothing to do with conditioning its adrenaline when your body is pumping with it everything can go flying out the window:D
as ive said most mma fighters look better when they are hitting the pads or air as well
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;980091]Street versus sport is a natural dichotomy because of the etiquette, rules, and Laws that govern. In addition, the average skill of the fighters whom one is facing is quite different between the street and sport. Finally, your your own goals matter (self-defense, bouncing, police, etc).
All of these factors and more contribute to different sets of techniques and skills being the most effective, efficient, or “pragmatic”.[/QUOTE]
Tons of stuff has been written on the street vs. sport question/mentality. (The SBGi has asection on it). It is not a “natural dichotomy” as you say but a philosophical dead end. It’s a wrong question. It arises when you don’t look at things from a skill-based (performance) perspective.
As I see it, WCK is a specific approach to fighting. It provides us a method and the skills (or skillset) to implement that method. As the kuit says, the method comes from the ancestors, the key is adapting it to the circumstances.
[QUOTE=goju;980094]how do you explain when they do it with in the first minute of a fight then? lol
it has nothing to do with conditioning its adrenaline when your body is pumping with it everything can go flying out the window:D
as ive said most mma fighters look better when they are hitting the pads or air as well[/QUOTE]
As I said, some haven’t internalized their training yet. You have, for example, very good jits or wrestlers who haven’t been doing stand-up striking for long yet are still fighting, or stand-up strikers who hit the ground and can’t escape a pin (yet you see them doing it in practice). Skill is being able to do in fighting what you do in training. When people can’t do in fighting what they do in training, when the training goes out the window, it means they are not very skilled. AS they get better skilled . . .
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;980095]Tons of stuff has been written on the street vs. sport question/mentality. (The SBGi has asection on it). It is not a “natural dichotomy” as you say but a philosophical dead end. It’s a wrong question. It arises when you don’t look at things from a skill-based (performance) perspective.
As I see it, WCK is a specific approach to fighting. It provides us a method and the skills (or skillset) to implement that method. As the kuit says, the method comes from the ancestors, the key is adapting it to the circumstances.[/QUOTE]
What you are saying rings pretty hollow. You are trying to turn me into some sort of a straw man to knock down. I am sorry but the street-sport dichotomy exists irrespective of what you think just as their are obvious differences between cats and dogs. Ring effective isn’t the same as street effective although ring effective is a key component street effectiveness. One can have all the attributes and ring skill in the world but it is necessary to have the body of knowledge that gives you the best chance to survive a knife fight, gun attack, multiple attackers, and so on.
let me refer to a concrete example from my own experience where I was just trying to survive the legalities of the situation with 50 witnesses.
Someone who I deem to be a pretty weak fighter attacks me in a drug induced rage because I attempted to break up his fight. What should I do?
- Beat his face in ring-sport style and risk jail?
- Use some chin na that would never be useful in a ring setting to incapacitate him util the police arrived?
I chose to stay way on the good side of the law and used chin na.
I could go on.
Now… as I have put it to throughout this thread, please explain to me how I am at a philosophical dead end because I teach chin na which has marginal ring effectiveness as part of my curriculum? Should I ignore the dichotomy and tell my students that they should have no problem getting off standing locks and rudimentary trips against an mma fighter? Should I stop teaching chin na because it isn’t ring effective? We practice these techniques with the same intensity that we would our ring techniques, although much of our chin na entries are predicated on using the mistakes that street fighters make.