[QUOTE=Violent Designs;1054132]I’m saying do you guys not think it was decent?
I am assuming you think the footage displayed in the video sucks then?[/QUOTE]
nothing wrong with the clip inherently. people can always find something to criticize . ill say the good things about it is that the black guy is flowing with his opponent and following his actions which is one of the maing things that differentiates wing chun from other fighting styles
curious as to why you think it is like “boxing”? im guessing its because of his body movement?
WC does not require you to be like a stiff tree with no footwork or body movement. i know in some schools they teach that but it is not required. some WC schools teach movement as fundamental and part of the kuen kuit.
WC differs greatly from school to school due to various reasons.
i find it hilarious that people think that if you are not trying to knock your sihings head off, its completely unrealistic and useless.
It reminds me of two boxers getting warmed up in the ring before a big fight, just getting there bearings and timing jacked up. No real intent is shown, and it is light on the structure, more just natural movement and such. I can see the benifit as it more free flowing than the strict VT drills normally done in a class, which is good sometimes as it lets the students be free for awhile.
In the beginning, it looked like the darker guy was training his ability to fight when pinned against the wall, which is good from a self defence apspect.
The thing is, not everyone is training to be a fighter, some are just looking for some basic unarmed self defence, and some do it for pleasure as well:) You don’t fight in self defence, you survive and get out alive.
sometimes i dont understand . people seem to think to have good structure you must be stuck with a certain posture at all times.
you only need good structure when you are trying to hit or do something else. otherwise, being so stiff all the time inhibits you from doing other things.
its like when i sparred this guy who boxed for 10 years. i was 3 feet away from him and he kept bobbing and weaving out of habit.
Believe it or not, there is always some sort of structure present when it comes to physical things. But when pressure is excerted upon something, a reinforced structure is needed to maintain a base. For us, that is the VT structure we learn when we train in the method. The forms and drills give us this ability to learn physically. VT is unique in that it is a form of controlling striking, rather than just striking like a boxer would do (for the most part anyways). If my natural bodily structure is not reinforced by VT training, there is no control ability available to me, as when contact/attachment is made my structure is already comprimised, I’m catching up to regain balance and stability. But when VT structure is in place, there is no catching up, you continue on to hit, since the pressure applied to you is nullified for the moment.
Of course nothing is guaranteed, and allot of factors are at play, but you have to start somewhere. Do I work my speed and angles and ability to beat my opponent to the punch, or work a method that allows a lower margine of error. One may work better when your young, but what happens when you age and can’t keep up anymore with the younger guns?
James
Structure does not = stiffness(extreme muscular tension) or posture holding.
Structure = aligned/unified body and joints, reinforced by slight muscular tension to support the joints and gain stability, with an abililty to adapt to pressure, due to more relaxed muscles and joint sensitivity.
[QUOTE=sihing;1054700]Believe it or not, there is always some sort of structure present when it comes to physical things. But when pressure is excerted upon something, a reinforced structure is needed to maintain a base. For us, that is the VT structure we learn when we train in the method. The forms and drills give us this ability to learn physically. VT is unique in that it is a form of controlling striking, rather than just striking like a boxer would do (for the most part anyways). If my natural bodily structure is not reinforced by VT training, there is no control ability available to me, as when contact/attachment is made my structure is already comprimised, I’m catching up to regain balance and stability. But when VT structure is in place, there is no catching up, you continue on to hit, since the pressure applied to you is nullified for the moment.[/quote]
Body unity through stable roots. One of the things that SLT touches upon in a fundamental way.
[QUOTE=sihing;1054700]Of course nothing is guaranteed, and allot of factors are at play, but you have to start somewhere. Do I work my speed and angles and ability to beat my opponent to the punch, or work a method that allows a lower margine of error. One may work better when your young, but what happens when you age and can’t keep up anymore with the younger guns?[/quote]
Isn’t the built in wisdom of the TCMAs a great thing.
with regards to what you said about “catching up to regain balance and stability” i would say that the techniques are applied differently in different situations. depends on your range, etc.
[QUOTE=sihing;1054700]Believe it or not, there is always some sort of structure present when it comes to physical things. But when pressure is excerted upon something, a reinforced structure is needed to maintain a base. For us, that is the VT structure we learn when we train in the method. The forms and drills give us this ability to learn physically. VT is unique in that it is a form of controlling striking, rather than just striking like a boxer would do (for the most part anyways). If my natural bodily structure is not reinforced by VT training, there is no control ability available to me, as when contact/attachment is made my structure is already comprimised, I’m catching up to regain balance and stability. But when VT structure is in place, there is no catching up, you continue on to hit, since the pressure applied to you is nullified for the moment.
Of course nothing is guaranteed, and allot of factors are at play, but you have to start somewhere. Do I work my speed and angles and ability to beat my opponent to the punch, or work a method that allows a lower margine of error. One may work better when your young, but what happens when you age and can’t keep up anymore with the younger guns?
James
Structure does not = stiffness(extreme muscular tension) or posture holding.
Structure = aligned/unified body and joints, reinforced by slight muscular tension to support the joints and gain stability, with an abililty to adapt to pressure, due to more relaxed muscles and joint sensitivity.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vankuen;1054630]So then what you really have a problem with, is the fact that the guys aren’t “as good as you”? Because MOST chunners are touchy feely, closed eyed, slap happy, hand chasey, using tickle me moves.
[/QUOTE]
So your logic is that if I don’t agree with what “most chunners” do then “my problem” is that they are not “as good as me”?
That’s brilliant..
So, if most chunners do flower arrangement and hug and kiss each other in ChiSao then I should go along with that? And if I don’t then that means I think they’re not “as good as me”? Sure that makes sense.. :o
[QUOTE=Vankuen;1054630]
I’ve yet to see ONE video of good wing chun…based on your standards. [/QUOTE]
And what are my standards? That sparring should actually be sparring using actual intent and Chun tactics? Yeah, that’s nuts..
[QUOTE=Vankuen;1054630]
So I fail to see how this is any worse then what’s already out there.
[/QUOTE]
Really, so this is the best video you’ve seen here? Okay, whatever floats your boat..
[QUOTE=Pacman;1054658]
WC does not require you to be like a stiff tree with no footwork or body movement.
[/QUOTE]
And where have people been advocating this as good chun?
Seems to me that people have been talking about all kinds of things here that talk about exactly the opposite… So either I have missed all these posts advocating no footwork and being stiff or you pulled this out of thin air..
[QUOTE=YungChun;1055009]And where have people been advocating this as good chun?
Seems to me that people have been talking about all kinds of things here that talk about exactly the opposite… So either I have missed all these posts advocating no footwork and being stiff or you pulled this out of thin air..[/QUOTE]
i think you have missed these things. all throughout the forums people will say o no that sucks “hes not rooted” if you see some hopping or “he has no structure” when referring to seeing a person turn their body to punch. this is peppered throughout the forums.
i met people in person that tell me they dont fully extend their arm when they punch, or that they never take their feet off the ground so that they stay “rooted”.
i meet people who keep close to 100% on their back leg, back is completely straight. yeah sure they have some footwork. im sure they think its good. to me i say that is too stationary and too stiff.
[QUOTE=Pacman;1055214]i think you have missed these things. all throughout the forums people will say o no that sucks “hes not rooted” if you see some hopping or “he has no structure” when referring to seeing a person turn their body to punch. this is peppered throughout the forums.
i met people in person that tell me they dont fully extend their arm when they punch, or that they never take their feet off the ground so that they stay “rooted”.
i meet people who keep close to 100% on their back leg, back is completely straight. yeah sure they have some footwork. im sure they think its good. to me i say that is too stationary and too stiff.
of course this is just my opinion and i am expressing it.[/QUOTE]
Where are the people here I asked advocating being stiff, etc? My impression is that when you heard structure you automatically thought “stiff” robot like actions.. The reality is that structure doesn’t mean that… Structure is about being effective in action in motion in movement, at whatever the task is… It will involve generating power and managing power… What we see in the video has little to do with this…it was simply playing around..
As far as the Emin clip goes, whatever he says or does has nothing to do with our discussions here.. I could only watch up to where he says that even when the other guy has longer legs that you can still kick him (his body) if he can kick you..and he basis this on physics.. Complete nonsense..
On an aside I see that there is a lot of weight placed on words, on which words are used here.. And I can also see that when one person uses a certain word others will jump on that and chastise the person.. Words are tricky and when one person uses one word that one person takes one way it isn’t always what they meant..
When Terence talked about having the weight on the ball of the foot I didn’t understand what he meant.. I had a certain picture in my head.. But when I checked my stances (which do have the whole foot on the floor) I realized that my ChumKiuMa did indeed have a “focus of weight” on the rear ball, despite the fact that the whole foot is flat on the ground.. Up until then I have said the weight was on the whole foot.. But now I realize that despite a flat foot there is a clear focus on the ball and that it’s key to correct loading… I have always felt it but I didn’t realize exactly where the weight was.. So when explaining it now I have a new reference…etc..
Folks need to try to listen and get a clear picture as well as painting a clear picture with their words before ripping people to shreds…
The video is terrible. The bobbing and weaving is fine, the defenses are decent, but the strikes reveal a distinct lack of ability.
They don’t need to strike hard, its their structure when they’re “hitting” that shows a lack of understanding on how to strike at all.
Anyone who can take a decent punch can walk right through their best, hardest, fastest strike because just based on how their structure looks, even if they were to put the ultimate effort into it, it would all fall apart when making contact.
Utterly terrible for instructor-level chi sao. Whats the point of being able to defend yourself from a strike when you can’t take advantage of the openings you create.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;1059615]The video is terrible. The bobbing and weaving is fine, the defenses are decent, but the strikes reveal a distinct lack of ability.
They don’t need to strike hard, its their structure when they’re “hitting” that shows a lack of understanding on how to strike at all.
Anyone who can take a decent punch can walk right through their best, hardest, fastest strike because just based on how their structure looks, even if they were to put the ultimate effort into it, it would all fall apart when making contact.
Utterly terrible for instructor-level chi sao. Whats the point of being able to defend yourself from a strike when you can’t take advantage of the openings you create.[/QUOTE]
And unfortunately the kung fu world is full of “instructors” such as these ones. :mad:
[QUOTE=AdrianK;1059615]The video is terrible. The bobbing and weaving is fine, the defenses are decent, but the strikes reveal a distinct lack of ability.
They don’t need to strike hard, its their structure when they’re “hitting” that shows a lack of understanding on how to strike at all.
Anyone who can take a decent punch can walk right through their best, hardest, fastest strike because just based on how their structure looks, even if they were to put the ultimate effort into it, it would all fall apart when making contact.
Utterly terrible for instructor-level chi sao. Whats the point of being able to defend yourself from a strike when you can’t take advantage of the openings you create.[/QUOTE]
I just don’t know what they were trying to show. You can tell the guys in the video do WCK as they are somewhat in a chi sau format. You can also tell they do some kind of boxing or MT, as they do bob and weave and that kind of cover for strikes to the head.
But they are just playing around. Kind of slap boxing like.
I don’t think the guys are terrible in general. I don’t like the way they are collapsed in on themselves on their bridge - I don’t think that is necessary to add in boxing or MT elements to long range fighting and think that is problematic in general.
I just would label it 2 guys playing around as opposed to “Advanced chi sau” or whatever.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;1059615]The video is terrible. The bobbing and weaving is fine, the defenses are decent, but the strikes reveal a distinct lack of ability.
They don’t need to strike hard, its their structure when they’re “hitting” that shows a lack of understanding on how to strike at all.
Anyone who can take a decent punch can walk right through their best, hardest, fastest strike because just based on how their structure looks, even if they were to put the ultimate effort into it, it would all fall apart when making contact.
Utterly terrible for instructor-level chi sao. Whats the point of being able to defend yourself from a strike when you can’t take advantage of the openings you create.[/QUOTE]
talk more about this next time we kick it.
i thought it kinda resembled old school boxing but you know more about this stuff.
What you see there isn’t boxing or muay thai, you see a poor emulation of boxing/muay thai. Its possible they’ve taken a few boxing/mt classes but what they’re doing with the slip and everything they took from that has such poor structure, timing and understanding that its hard to believe they ever spent a decent amount of time doing it.
I really would agree that they were just playing around, if not for the title of the video and description. I think its a couple of Wing Chun guys who decided to adapt some boxing he might’ve either learned or emulated from a video, then “messed up” their wing chun kin by slipping the straight punches, and felt all badass and decided to label their crap “Advanced Chi Sao”
But really, there is no boxing/mt bobbing or weaving going on there. He’s moving his body to the side but not slipping any punches, just creating distance. That can be smart when trying to keep an opponent away from you, but serves little purpose when you’re just going to re-engage.
[QUOTE=Violent Designs;1060043]talk more about this next time we kick it.
i thought it kinda resembled old school boxing but you know more about this stuff.[/QUOTE]
Haha, you were supposed to come to my boxing class but you flaked It was a pretty good class, I mostly worked the mitts and everyone do some basic defense drills, they’re all progressing fairly well but still just starting out.
Btw, just watched the video again. The most awesome thing is that they blurred out the guy’s face, but forgot to blur it out in the mirror on the wall, so you can clearly see the dude.
I see nothing fantastic about all the bobbing and weaving during this slap boxing session. It doesn’t have any decisive control or sharpness that any good short bridge would have or any realistic counters or traps that a good long bridge would offer. It looks to be a kind of in between slapping session. It does have an incredible lack of structure from top to bottom. I think that it looks like the shell of Wing Chun, but has no real substance or value.
If that is SiFu level, I am afraid of what the students could be like.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;1062913]What you see there isn’t boxing or muay thai, you see a poor emulation of boxing/muay thai. Its possible they’ve taken a few boxing/mt classes but what they’re doing with the slip and everything they took from that has such poor structure, timing and understanding that its hard to believe they ever spent a decent amount of time doing it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes agree. So I don’t know if they were just slacking around playing or if they were really trying and aren’t very good.
I really would agree that they were just playing around, if not for the title of the video and description. I think its a couple of Wing Chun guys who decided to adapt some boxing he might’ve either learned or emulated from a video, then “messed up” their wing chun kin by slipping the straight punches, and felt all badass and decided to label their crap “Advanced Chi Sao”
Yeah, it’s hard to believe that people slacking around playing would be pompous enough to label it that.
Personally I think the black guy technique was weak. His Structure was frequently compromise and he was in bad posistion most of the time with his back slopply up against the wall. Also i didnt see much of controlling the opponent, controlling the centerline or controlling the elbow.
