Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]IMO generalized statements like “90% of fights go to the ground” and the like, even if true, aren’t significant. The issue is what we personally can do, what our skill level is, what our performance ability is, etc. How easily can you be taken to the ground? How well can you deal with that situation should it occur? And the most important question: is your answer based on theory or do you know based on experience? In other words, do you know your performance level? (There is only one way to know that).
So often, as in this case, the issue almost always comes back to whether you are a theoretician or a fighter – if you believe you have the answers/skill that’s one thing, continually testing your beliefs/skills against skilled opposition in fighting is something else. Quite frankly, one can’t argue with theoreticians because in theory all things are equal, much appears plausible, etc. You’ll never convince a theoretician that wants to believe WCK has all the answers, or WCK is a superior art, WCK will work on the ground, or whatever, that they are mistaken. All we can do is ask anyone that makes a claim to prove it, provide the evidence. If they can’t or won’t prove it in fighting, then we know it is nothing more than conjecture on their part.
Victor makes the call for video – and that can be good evidence, though that depends on the content of the tape. For example, someone could provide a tape of them using their WCK “mount defense” in a demo or against one of their classmates. That would prove nothing (other than perhaps give us a clearer example of what they were talking about). It’s another matter to provide a tape of them using it against skilled folks, with developed attributes, under genuine fighting (full resistance, full power, etc.) conditions. [/B]
Yes, but who’s making claims. If I said my techniques are superior to all others, then this is a claim and I better be ready to prove it. In my posts describing what we may do in a situation, there are no claims of superiority, just explanations of what someone can do in the situation. There are hundreds of ways to defend one’s self against the mount, shoot, punches or kicks, whatever. JKD people use this or that method, Muay Thai something else, all according to what the concepts and principals of that particular art entail.
As for the video, you may never see the technique/s described if using it against someone specialized in that area when fighting as I am not going to allow them to just mount me and start the fight from there. Get me there first then of course I will use whatever methods needed. But you have to have a base or idea of what one can do. Just going out and doing whatever comes to mind when in the heat of the battle will not work. You have to drill something into your system and learn how it works, why it works, when it will work, what it works against, and against who it will work. In class when teaching anything to the students it is not sufficient to just ask them to mimic your movements, everything (according to the comprehension level of the student) must be explained so the questions above are answered. Everything starts out as a theory and is then put into practice. One without the other makes the process incomplete, therefore an incomplete Martial Artist is the result.
James
Wing Chun concepts are not limited to any particular method or way, Wing Chun teaches, more than anything else, to use what is most economical in a given situation; WC structure is created by applying the concepts to the body’s available tools, we think, just for standup – this is what has created the system’s tools and techniques, well if you can apply these concepts to create a standup system then you can apply them to create WC Ground & Pound IMO – that assumes the brilliant founders of this system never considered groundwork necessary. 