# Tackling the Tackle



## yipman_sifu (Feb 10, 2006)

Here is a discussion of Sifu David Peterson about grapplers techniques and how to respond to it.
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=92


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 10, 2006)

Well...  Anytime someone starts of a description of how to defend a takedown with the line " From what I have seen in the 'UFC' matches" that should send up a red flag immediately.

What he is describing will not work against someone with decent takedown skills.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 10, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well... Anytime someone starts of a description of how to defend a takedown with the line " From what I have seen in the 'UFC' matches" that should send up a red flag immediately.
> 
> What he is describing will not work against someone with decent takedown skills.



Would you mind explaining further why it wouldn't work? (I haven't read the entire article just yet, but the first bit seemed reasonable).

7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 10, 2006)

When you shoot on someone you assume they are going to move, and you keep driving until you get them.  Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged.

Not to mention that no one shoots without a set up.  If I want to take you down I plan on hitting you first, shooting from a tie up or letting you step in and plant your heals.

The only reliable way to stop a shot is to learn how to sprawl, and all the things that go with it.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 10, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> When you shoot on someone you assume they are going to move, and you keep driving until you get them.  Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged.


Not only that, the attacker can move faster forward than the defender can backwards, alllowing the attacker to easily over-take the defender.  I haven't read the entire article, yet and I don't know anything about Wing Chun.  However, I think in a very universal sense, one must change the shape of the attack to something other than what the attacker is expecting at the moment the attacker committed to the attack.  This will mess with his dynamics and change his balance and so forth.  But it certainly is not the end point, it is only the beginning.


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 10, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> When you shoot on someone you assume they are going to move, and you keep driving until you get them. Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged.


 I have a hard time with discussion that use static absolutes such as, "Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged". I agree that the risk is present, but this is where your feel comes into play. If we look at it as a static movement where your left and right feet will move precisely to a set location within a set amount of space.....yes your right. 

If however we look at the technique as a dynamic technique where you can adjust the distance according to your opponents distance and force; than the technique is pretty valid. I would add that the technique is only partially sound as described in that article. You must manipulate the balance and center of the lunging opponent. This could be to either side or even down, but must be done in order for the technique to work properly, otherwise you do run a great risk of being single legged. Basically its a "sprawl" in theory with a bit different footwork and intent. I personally use a technique quite similar with all my grappling buddies (including those having trained in the Gracie camp). It takes timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation, but techniques similar to what has been described can work quite effectively with a little more to them than as described in the article. 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Not to mention that no one shoots without a set up. If I want to take you down I plan on hitting you first, shooting from a tie up or letting you step in and plant your heals.


 Now this is a great point and one too many people ignore. However, too much emphasis is placed on the reaction of the person being hit. Many assume the hit or tie up is going to get them the upper hand, while I spend the majority of my time training from those scenarios. Its like UpNorth said in another thread, "If everyone is super, no one is". If everyone trains for the setup, the effectiveness is much less. In mantis thats a huge weapon of ours, we hit, kick, even chin na to set up things, so the idea that a setup will take away the defense is only partially true and quite oversimplified. 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The only reliable way to stop a shot is to learn how to sprawl, and all the things that go with it.


 I disagree with this statement 100% and I agree with it 100%. 
What I mean is that there are many ways of "sprawling" and that can include a technique such as the one described in the article above. The major point is not the sprawl itself but the "all the things that go with it". If you understand the principles behind the sprawl you can manipulate it and adapt it to many different scenarios and techniques. 

Just my opinions from my own training and experience,
 7sm


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 11, 2006)

I agree with 7star, you are dealing absoluts much the way in which the author is. Steping backwards can be an effective strategy, particulary if you have developed the "root" in Wing Chun, because it means you have developed fast effective footwork that retains the SLT energy that allows the practicioner to maintain body unity thus allowing a moresolid defence against takedowns. However in the stepping back there is also the side step wich is not just a single step back, but more a constantly shifting point of refernce for the oponant to work with, constatnly needing to rechange his game plan in terms of where to initiate contact, therefore it would not simply be a matter of the grappler simply coming forward, his angle of attack would need to be constantly shifiting in order to match the Wing chun player. This being said it is of a certainty that even the most experiance grappler, would find it difficult to maintain the proper blance, and the constant moving would pay a toll on his body untiy and coordination, where as the Wing Chun player would maintain his untiy and coordination troughout (i.e. an experianced WC player). This shifting is however not the only way to deal with this type of attack, there are other methods, which are more dependent on the level of trainng that the Wing Chun practioner has developed, but we cant give away all of our secrets


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 11, 2006)

If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 11, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?



Which one are you refering to?


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 11, 2006)

WOW!!!!! People actually believe this....I am sorry this just wont work!

This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler! 

I agree that the momentum is on the shooters side and you just cant back up that fast! Secondly if it was as easy as side stepping or back peddling BJJ wouldnt have the reputation that it does in the octagon!

Let me also adress a member here



			
				bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> I agree with 7star, you are dealing absoluts much the way in which the author is. Steping backwards can be an effective strategy, particulary if you have developed the "root" in Wing Chun, because it means you have developed fast effective footwork that retains the SLT energy that allows the practicioner to maintain body unity thus allowing a moresolid defence against takedowns.


 
If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate balance and strength that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!

Also Grapplers and people who take down train against this very type of rooted stance...I know I do!




			
				bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> However in the stepping back there is also the side step wich is not just a single step back, but more a constantly shifting point of refernce for the oponant to work with, constatnly needing to rechange his game plan in terms of where to initiate contact, therefore it would not simply be a matter of the grappler simply coming forward, his angle of attack would need to be constantly shifiting in order to match the Wing chun player. This being said it is of a certainty that even the most experiance grappler, would find it difficult to maintain the proper blance, and the constant moving would pay a toll on his body untiy and coordination, where as the Wing Chun player would maintain his untiy and coordination troughout (i.e. an experianced WC player).


 
Againyou show a lack of understanding as to exactly what grappling is....no matter who you fight the game plan needs to change constantly...then at the opportune moment you strike. That is how a takedown occurs...it is swift and it is set up..personally I like to rake the eyes....or kick the nuts before I take them down With a osoto gari....straight into a gata gatame...or another Shimewazza..for what you are speaking of a shoot isnt all grapplers know they have an extensive amount of throws from Judo and such...even the great Bruce Lee said that Judo was the most practical martial art!




			
				bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> This shifting is however not the only way to deal with this type of attack, there are other methods, which are more dependent on the level of trainng that the Wing Chun practioner has developed, but we cant give away all of our secrets
> 
> 
> > Right...now give us examples because this sounds like a cop out...maybe some evidence that they work...there is heaps of evidence that shooting/throwing works well against the defences you are talking about...also alot of evidence that grapplers beat wing chun players!
> ...


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 12, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> WOW!!!!! People actually believe this....I am sorry this just wont work!
> 
> This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!
> 
> I agree that the momentum is on the shooters side and you just cant back up that fast! Secondly if it was as easy as side stepping or back peddling BJJ wouldnt have the reputation that it does in the octagon!


 
Baat cham do foot work isn't so much side stepping or back peddling, its more like a center shifting yeild with a controlled fall.  I base this on the premise that wing chun tends to fall rather than step.  The funny thing is i notice a lot of UFC fights where practicioners of other arts do beging their avoidance of a shoot in a similar way to this, its probably similar in practice to the sprawling that Andrew Green spoke of.  To say it simpley won't work based on only reading what is described in an article is just as bad as him thinking it will work based on only watching UFC.  I'm not saying its some secret amazing technique that will nullify grapplers and to be honest i don't think the article was written in such a way.  I feel it was an article written to look at principles of wing chun in relation to other effective arts, it gives people a starting point on which to focus if they wish to work against grapplers it doesn't give them immediate sucess and if you were entering a UFC with just that then it won't work, it needs to be trained and tested against grapplers constantly and it will probably evolve a lot to represent sprawling although using the principles of wing chun behind it.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Let me also adress a member here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, i can't help but feel that not all arts teach the same stance and footwork as wing chun, it would help if you understood the footwork that is being discussed before you make a comment on it.  And like i said before wing chun falls rather than steps, its a controlled fall, so they also have gravity on their side.  I'm not here to say that one will work and one will not, it obvious depending on the skill and effort put in to each individual that either could work and people do defy shoots and people do overcome all martial arts techniques.  

You train against a rooted stance which is great and all people here are talking about is training against shoots - i'm sure you have trained things that can be easily negated by some arts and pose a huge problem to others - i prefer not to look at it as a representation of the art but rather of the individual.  If a wing chun guy doesn't take the idea of a shoot to its absoloute limits then he isn't going to fair well against a shooter but that doesn't mean that with training that the principles in wing chun can't be effective against shooting - the distinction isn't the art or the technique but the individual.  Taking people to the floor is very effective and not easy to stop at all, this is very evident in UFC but a fair amount of people do it although more tend not to suceed.  You can get caught up in this technique beats that technique but like i say its more about how well the person is trained under pressure and how many ways they can make things work against it - what i am saying is it can work and that doesn't mean its better, more vital or unique, the article wasn't written very well in order to address people that aren't seeing it from a wing chun point of view.






			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Againyou show a lack of understanding as to exactly what grappling is....no matter who you fight the game plan needs to change constantly...then at the opportune moment you strike. That is how a takedown occurs...it is swift and it is set up..personally I like to rake the eyes....or kick the nuts before I take them down With a osoto gari....straight into a gata gatame...or another Shimewazza..for what you are speaking of a shoot isnt all grapplers know they have an extensive amount of throws from Judo and such...even the great Bruce Lee said that Judo was the most practical martial art!


 
Ok, an understanding of both martial arts and there effectiveness is important here, i think everyone can be guilty of saying or judging one arts outlook without really understanding them fully.  What seems to be happening now is people are saying if you did that i'd do this and i'd win and in retort the other is saying if you did that i'd do this and you'd lose.  It gets us nowhere and seems to create tension, no one can take away from the fact that grappling is effective and hard to deal with, there is no simple dead set way to nullify it but the same can be said of a lot of techniques.  That said, i'm interested as to where bruce lee said that judo was the most practical and in what context.




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> bcbernam777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Actually it sounds like a joke, and theres also evidence that grapplers can beat bald men - don't think of people in terms of their art so much, think of them in terms of how much they put in etc.  If all wing chun people were training to be in the UFC and all putting all their time into it and still losing then sure maybe the blanket statement of wing chun players would work better but as it stands very few schools that teach proper wing chun go in for UFC type stuff or even care about it from that perspective.  We have other reasons and choices behind our training and that doesn't mean there is a lack of respect for grappling we just take it from a different angle.  For instance my sifu - samual kwok - does a lot of joint seminars with the gracies, wing chun and bjj seminars.  They are pretty extensive and show a great insight into both, my sifu is a very well respected man in wing chun worldwide but what i was hoping to illustrate by this is wing chun people are very aware of the effectiveness of grappling.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!


 
True





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!


 
likewise with the baat cham do footwork





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?


 
Well work the tecnique for a while and see what you come up with.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!


  You are unbeatable and wing chun doesn't work?



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> To grapple effectively you need timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation.


 
good skills to have.







			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!
> 
> The fact is to a certain degree a reaction can be had....scraping someones eyes may not force them to grab there face but it will blind them...punching someones throat may not get them to drop there guard but it will stun or kill them!
> 
> Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!


 
I don't feel that you have hurt any feelings or ego on my part, it does come over that your ego is very present in your opinion however.  Not necessarily a bad thing.  I swear the amount of times ive been in the old discussion about wing chun vs. grappling it does get tiring, its not offensive and i think at times the points raised are good but all to often it gets silly with people saying my guns bigger than yours.  Personally i hope to never use my training where as the majority of BJJ people hope to use it - its training from a very different mindset and perspective.


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 12, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _WOW!!!!! People actually believe this....I am sorry this just wont work!
> 
> ...


 
Yes i have started my journey into Yau Kun Mun...so I will have to say that I understand what the shifting yield...it is also used in Hapkido to some degree to help with the redirection of your opponents attack! It is a step away...while moving your center to allow you to sucessfully counter attack!

Even by your admission you say that it wont work till it evolves....That aticle in my opinion was not about principles it was one man saying that this technique will work...and that is dangerous..to say that untested!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Let me also adress a member here
> 
> ...


 
A rooted stance is in essence all the same..grounding yourself....an example...white crane..all aspects of Goju Ryu Kata are within its forms....goju Ryu came from a Kung Fu system....so the rooted stances are not all that different!

Also if it is a controlled fall..arent you going where your opponent wants you to be...I dont know about you controlling falls...would mean losing control of the situation...because they would dominate on the ground!

I agree that you need to take the shoot to its limits you will fail against it...that is why I have no respect for this article because he hasnt taken it to its limits...he hasnt gone to where the grapplers play to test it! I am not talking about the octagon..I mean down to there dojos to fight someone of equal experience!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Againyou show a lack of understanding as to exactly what grappling is....no matter who you fight the game plan needs to change constantly...then at the opportune moment you strike. That is how a takedown occurs...it is swift and it is set up..personally I like to rake the eyes....or kick the nuts before I take them down With a osoto gari....straight into a gata gatame...or another Shimewazza..for what you are speaking of a shoot isnt all grapplers know they have an extensive amount of throws from Judo and such...even the great Bruce Lee said that Judo was the most practical martial art!_
> 
> ...




Yes a understanding of both...that a man in an article gets from simply watching UFC...that is degrading to grapplers IMHO! I never said if you do this I would do that...the fact is that its not just the shoot you need to worry about...BJJ is based heavily on Judo throws (I myself am a Judoka...not a MMAist in the sport sense...with alot of experience in standing arts, like boxing, TKD, Goju Ryu, Hapkido and lately Yau Kun Mun)

Bruce lee lost a match to a judoka....that is why in that movie with Kareem Abdul Jabba he is seen to apply a hold from Judo! I am trying to find the links..maybe I will PM them to you!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bcbernam777*
> ...


 
actually Bald Men have a higher rate of sucess against shoots and grapplers...LOL! The article was not about individuals and the posts were not about individuals...they were about techniques..and that technique IMHO will not work! There is evidence that it does not work!

I never meant to disrespect your Sifu...he sounds like a switched on guy...now ask him if the technique in the article will work against a shot!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?_
> 
> ...


 
I did with the yau kun mun..guy that teaches me....every time he ended on his butt!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!_
> 
> You are unbeatable and wing chun doesn't work?


 
I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!
> 
> ...


 
No I dont think its ego on my part....I just like to get  straight to it! I agree that the old style vs style is as old as MA itself.....and a load of crapola if you ask me...it is really the individual that makes or breaks the art!

I have been a JUdoka for 18 years...I have 0 tournaments under my belt..I dont train for sports..i train a martial art! Not all BJJ peeps train to use it...it is a sport...but they dont all walk around in tights waiting to pounce on everyone!

My post was in no way a attack on Wing Chun...but a attack on techniques that have proven time and time again to be ineffective!

I would also like to say thank you for the post and I look forward to your response!


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 12, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes i have started my journey into Yau Kun Mun...so I will have to say that I understand what the shifting yield...it is also used in Hapkido to some degree to help with the redirection of your opponents attack! It is a step away...while moving your center to allow you to sucessfully counter attack!
> 
> Even by your admission you say that it wont work till it evolves....That aticle in my opinion was not about principles it was one man saying that this technique will work...and that is dangerous..to say that untested!




Well i'd say no technique would work until you put some work into it.






			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> A rooted stance is in essence all the same..grounding yourself....an example...white crane..all aspects of Goju Ryu Kata are within its forms....goju Ryu came from a Kung Fu system....so the rooted stances are not all that different!


 
Maybe in the broadest essence they are the same but from the way i see it the way the wing chun stance works with rooting is a little different to say the least, wing chun grounds itself so momentarily and is always mobile - the stance roots yes but its strength is in its mobility not stability thats why the feet are always moving hence the wing chun saying move a hand move a foot.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Also if it is a controlled fall..arent you going where your opponent wants you to be...I dont know about you controlling falls...would mean losing control of the situation...because they would dominate on the ground!


 
not really, its easier to show than explain this, but the fall is under control and it works because its relaxed.  its harder to control someones movement when they are falling compared to when they are stepping so it actually makes it harder for the opponent.  I think you may have misunderstood, you don't end up on the ground its just a principle behind the stepping.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I agree that you need to take the shoot to its limits you will fail against it...that is why I have no respect for this article because he hasnt taken it to its limits...he hasnt gone to where the grapplers play to test it! I am not talking about the octagon..I mean down to there dojos to fight someone of equal experience!


 
Yes but the same can be said of you saying it won't work, no ones seen him actually try his ideas out and articles can very easily portray the wrong thing, its never easy to explain what you mean in words when it comes to wing chun or other arts.  Take what he says with a pinch of salt and say you'll believe it when you see it, he may have been rather myopic in his article in the sense of explaining himself fully, i'm sure it raised a million questions for you and perhaps he would answer them to a more satisfactory manner if you were in person but articles don't have that luxary.  There were some intersting points in the article from a wing chun point of view but you need to take all attacks to limits and really test them not just the attcks of grapplers and even then there is no sure bet on how you will fair.




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes a understanding of both...that a man in an article gets from simply watching UFC...that is degrading to grapplers IMHO!




I sincearly doubt that was his intention, they were only his opening words and the guy is a respected wing chun guy, he wasn't degrading grappling and i am sure he knows its value.  He was more concentrating on talking about wing chun needs to treat grapplers as a real threat to the approach of wing chun, so much so that he found it worthy of writing out some ideas to look at when going up against such attacks.  And perhaps they were too simple to address moderately to well trained grapplers but the ideas, simple as they were may give some sucess against the simpler opponant with a lesser grappling skill - a starting point if you will.




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I never said if you do this I would do that...the fact is that its not just the shoot you need to worry about...BJJ is based heavily on Judo throws (I myself am a Judoka...not a MMAist in the sport sense...with alot of experience in standing arts, like boxing, TKD, Goju Ryu, Hapkido and lately Yau Kun Mun)





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Bruce lee lost a match to a judoka....that is why in that movie with Kareem Abdul Jabba he is seen to apply a hold from Judo! I am trying to find the links..maybe I will PM them to you!




No but the discussion got dangerously close to it turning into a bit of "i'll do this if you do that" kind of thing and everyone here is hopefully fully aware of the fact BJJ and other arts are more than just the shoot but one thing at a time.  I think any wing chun practicioner that is foolish enough to think that what was contained in that article would negate grapplers as a whole is in serious need of a wake up call.  And i really don't think davids intention was to come across in such a way, i'll hopefully be meeting up with david next month as he's doing a few seminars here, perhaps i'll raise a question to his approach on grapplers and see how he demonstrates his ideas. 







			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> actually Bald Men have a higher rate of sucess against shoots and grapplers...LOL! The article was not about individuals and the posts were not about individuals...they were about techniques..and that technique IMHO will not work! There is evidence that it does not work!


 
Its always about the individual in a fight, each individual applys techniques differently and he is indeed talking about his personal individual approach to the situation and there is no evidence that it doesn't work for him.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I never meant to disrespect your Sifu...he sounds like a switched on guy...now ask him if the technique in the article will work against a shot!


You didn't disrespect him but my sifus entire approach to wing chun is different to that of peterson and guys in the wong shun leung school of thought.  He could say that he couldn't make the ideas work or that he prefers a different approach based on his way of things but he couldn't tell you if peterson can work it, only peterson can do that.  I do agree that if he hasn't tested it as much as he could in some serious pressure testing then its not something worthy to take on board as if it had.  But like i have said i think its a simplified look at some of the problems you'll face early on when begining to train against grapplers.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I did with the yau kun mun..guy that teaches me....every time he ended on his butt!


 
Well either he wasn't practicing it has peterson had envisioned or you can overcome the technique, perhaps understanding and training in wing chun is vital to its sucess? 





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!


 
yeah well i'm sure while sucess may have been found at the gracie camp it was soon cataloged by grapplers for future reference so of course strikers would continue to worry about grapplers.  The technique wouldn't make millions unless you applied a ******** marketing idea with it.  





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> No I dont think its ego on my part....I just like to get straight to it! I agree that the old style vs style is as old as MA itself.....and a load of crapola if you ask me...it is really the individual that makes or breaks the art!


 
It may not be ego on your part however it may be comming off like that - just goes to show how the folly of written word being open to misinterpretation.  



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I have been a JUdoka for 18 years...I have 0 tournaments under my belt..I dont train for sports..i train a martial art! Not all BJJ peeps train to use it...it is a sport...but they dont all walk around in tights waiting to pounce on everyone!


 
do you find the training for the competitions is radically different to that of someone not interested in competition of any kind?



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> My post was in no way a attack on Wing Chun...but a attack on techniques that have proven time and time again to be ineffective!


 
don't worry about what they say, worry about what they do, the proof is in the pudding right?



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I would also like to say thank you for the post and I look forward to your response!


 
You are welcome.


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 12, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Yes i have started my journey into Yau Kun Mun...so I will have to say that I understand what the shifting yield...it is also used in Hapkido to some degree to help with the redirection of your opponents attack! It is a step away...while moving your center to allow you to sucessfully counter attack!
> 
> ...


 
Yes and the article speaks of no testing..just having watched UFC!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _A rooted stance is in essence all the same..grounding yourself....an example...white crane..all aspects of Goju Ryu Kata are within its forms....goju Ryu came from a Kung Fu system....so the rooted stances are not all that different!_
> 
> ...


 
No in Goju..and TKD there is movement...it is only really grounded at the time that your feet hit the floor..but is also a moving satnce...i think all stances need to be!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Also if it is a controlled fall..arent you going where your opponent wants you to be...I dont know about you controlling falls...would mean losing control of the situation...because they would dominate on the ground!_
> 
> ...


 
Sorry that is my Judoka mind..a controlled fall is hitting the ground...if by falll you mean back up then my post doesnt apply!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I agree that you need to take the shoot to its limits you will fail against it...that is why I have no respect for this article because he hasnt taken it to its limits...he hasnt gone to where the grapplers play to test it! I am not talking about the octagon..I mean down to there dojos to fight someone of equal experience!_
> 
> ...


 
Exactly!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Yes a understanding of both...that a man in an article gets from simply watching UFC...that is degrading to grapplers IMHO! _
> 
> ...


 
that may be the case...but the grapplers get alot of stick from the strikers as well...so we do tend to get a bit defensive!

As a starting point I agree.....but he says that it is how to deal with a shoot...that I disagree...the only documented technique that I have seen that is effective are kness (a reasonable amount of luck is required) and the sprawl!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I never said if you do this I would do that...the fact is that its not just the shoot you need to worry about...BJJ is based heavily on Judo throws (I myself am a Judoka...not a MMAist in the sport sense...with alot of experience in standing arts, like boxing, TKD, Goju Ryu, Hapkido and lately Yau Kun Mun)_
> 
> ...


 
I hope you do and i hope that you let us know what he meant...a video would be nice...if you can swing it! Becasue if you have found a counter..we need to find a counter...counter! LOL!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _actually Bald Men have a higher rate of sucess against shoots and grapplers...LOL! The article was not about individuals and the posts were not about individuals...they were about techniques..and that technique IMHO will not work! There is evidence that it does not work!_
> 
> ...


 
Agreed! But no where in that article did he say.."it works for me!" He said it works!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I never meant to disrespect your Sifu...he sounds like a switched on guy...now ask him if the technique in the article will work against a shot!_
> 
> You didn't disrespect him but my sifus entire approach to wing chun is different to that of peterson and guys in the wong shun leung school of thought. He could say that he couldn't make the ideas work or that he prefers a different approach based on his way of things but he couldn't tell you if peterson can work it, only peterson can do that. I do agree that if he hasn't tested it as much as he could in some serious pressure testing then its not something worthy to take on board as if it had. But like i have said i think its a simplified look at some of the problems you'll face early on when begining to train against grapplers.


 
That is all I am saying is that to make a statement like that..on a Idea...is dangerous..test first...article later!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I did with the yau kun mun..guy that teaches me....every time he ended on his butt!_
> 
> ...


 
True..I suppose that because I had some idea of what he was doing I may have taken measures to counter...but in essence I just struck..and shot..and he couldnt move back quick enough!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!_
> 
> ...


 
I was of course being sarcastic!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _No I dont think its ego on my part....I just like to get straight to it! I agree that the old style vs style is as old as MA itself.....and a load of crapola if you ask me...it is really the individual that makes or breaks the art!_
> 
> ...


 
Point!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I have been a JUdoka for 18 years...I have 0 tournaments under my belt..I dont train for sports..i train a martial art! Not all BJJ peeps train to use it...it is a sport...but they dont all walk around in tights waiting to pounce on everyone!_
> 
> ...


 
No the training is physically the same...the mind set isnt....the excecution isnt...a tippy tappy point fighter..would pull his strike in real live altercations..and wouldnt be programmed to go for kill points...or happy points..whatever makes you fell better about kicking someone in the nuts...or gouging out a eye...you excecute how you train!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _My post was in no way a attack on Wing Chun...but a attack on techniques that have proven time and time again to be ineffective!_
> 
> ...


 
Exactlty....no proof...no pudding!


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 13, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate *balance and strength* that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!


 
Actually the "root" that I am talking about is dfferent than mere balance and strength Savage and is very different than any other martial art, and with due respect to you and Andrew Green, you are doing the exact same thing that you say David Peterson is doing, You say that he is giving information based on second hand information, not information based on personal experiance, have you studied Wing Chun or do you simply know everything about it by osmosis. And if your facts are based on the "yeah I have taken on wing chun guys and kicked the crap out of them" Then IU can also say to you that I have done like wise with grapplers, ah but then you will say to me, "then they obviously wheren't properly trained grapplers" and then I will say to you, "ahh but the you obviously came up aginast badly trained WC practicioners" to which you reply ........ and so it goes on and on and on, until the crap fight goes on and on with my style's bigger than your style, with all the mentality of a couple of school kids in a playground. If you dont think WC has an answer to a grappler, then I can stand here all day, show you facts figures, I can draw diagrams, I can explain to you the conceptual baisis as well as the experiancial basis for why this is an errounous idea, and I can do this from sun up to sun down, and you will still disagree with me, and I know you will because you have a preset idea, and with all due respect but I find that people such as yourself, dont change their opinions, rarely if ever. The bare facts are

A) you dont know wing chun

B) I doubt you have studied wing chun

C) you are in the camp with the majority of UFC afficienados you claim that TCM's are generally crap.

D) I doubt you could have a decent paradigm shift.



here are the facts as I see them:

A) I have no doubt as to the reality that a properly trained grappler, can be a worthy and difficuolt opponao9nt, as well as any one who has properly trained (in most arts) can be a formidible and dangerous oponant. 

B) There are a lot of McDojo Wing Chun schools who have done serious damage to the credibility and the perception of Wing Chun esp. in the last 10-15 years

C) In the final analysis it does not matter which system you learn, if you are not willing to train your little gluteous Maximus off in a consistant way, then it doesnt matter how good your system is, you will never ever maximise its full potential. In translation "It comes down to the man"

D) If people wont train against other stylists then they will not have the sufficient experiance to learn how to deal with multiple situations.

E) If you dont want to believe that WC has an answer to the problem then that aint no skin off my nose, as the saying goes "I know my opponants skill but he doesn't know mine" so that would put me at the advantage.

I hope there wasn't too much sugar with that.


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 13, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes and the article speaks of no testing..just having watched UFC!


 
It shopuldn't need saying thats what martial arts are about, kung fu is hard work.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> No in Goju..and TKD there is movement...it is only really grounded at the time that your feet hit the floor..but is also a moving satnce...i think all stances need to be!


 
I know for a fact the movement and stance work in TKD is drastically different to that of wing chun.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Sorry that is my Judoka mind..a controlled fall is hitting the ground...if by falll you mean back up then my post doesnt apply!


 
ok then my point stands.














			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I hope you do and i hope that you let us know what he meant...a video would be nice...if you can swing it! Becasue if you have found a counter..we need to find a counter...counter! LOL!


 
I will try and get a video but i'm thinking that it won't warrant you finding a counter so much but perhaps just appreciate his approach wasn't so arrogant and might actually have some worth.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Agreed! But no where in that article did he say.."it works for me!" He said it works!


 
Thats somewhat pedantic and perhaps he could have written it better but when i say something works in wing chun i usually mean it works for me and perhaps it should be made more clear but wing chun is a completely personalised style. 





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> That is all I am saying is that to make a statement like that..on a Idea...is dangerous..test first...article later!


 
But you'd be a fool not to test it, the article is directed toward wing cun people and they should test it thats the point of putting an idea out there, if no one got anything from it then it was a waste if a few people just take a few elements and priciples from the idea then its not a waste.  If we need to start putting disclaimers on ideas that people share because people don't realise that it always need working and fitting to you personally then we are in very sad times.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> True..I suppose that because I had some idea of what he was doing I may have taken measures to counter...but in essence I just struck..and shot..and he couldnt move back quick enough!


 
its a skill that would need a lot of training.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I was of course being sarcastic!


 
About what part?  respecting wing chun or making millions?












			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Exactlty....no proof...no pudding!


 
So petersons approach remains to be proved or disproved


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?


I want to point out that I have seen it make its way into competitive grappling. I need to clearify that I dont mean to speak of static or specific techniques but rather principled "guidlines" if you will. The classic sprawl is being used much much differently than it was 10 years ago. Also let me say I'm not defending the article, I have allready expressed my views of its shortcomings, I'm refering to that type of technique much like the one I described in my post above. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!


 Lets not start off jumping to conclusions, whether this guy has faced qualified grapplers or not is simply not stated. It would appear he hasn't by the static explination he gave, but then he was also speaking to WC people who would take what he says and go train it, test it, adapt it, and apply it.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!


 Wow, now your making the same mistake your criticizing the article for making. Your assumption that I was discussing what I saw and not what I have experienced is faulty and only _seems_ to prove your unwillingness to accept differing points of view. A shoot *is* very different than a tackle, your absolutely correct....whats your point?



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!


 Your taking keywords of mine and using them to mean something other than what I'm saying. By using the word "lunging" I meant to describe the action of the opponent coming in...I'll try and remember to use the word "shooting" for further refrence. It seems as if you didn't even read what I posted. I'm not in any way speaking of back-peddling. In fact, I said that type of movement would get you single legged. I think I understand what you are refering to as "the 8 points of unbalancing" maybe you could describe it a bit more, but we train the majority of our fighting to unbalance the opponent. Thats probably one of our most trained principles. I understand the effectiveness of shooting as I train in it and against it consistently. What I'm saying is that its simply not un-defendable. A well planned, well trained technique is still not so strong it cannot be defended against. It seems your unwilling to accept that others may have skill equal to or better than yours and thus your techniques might not work.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?


 You should really re-read my posts a bit. I explained the point of the sprawl is not just simply the technique of the feet but also the dropping the weight on top of the opponent and such. The thing which makes this type of "sprawl" or "shoot defense" effective is creating contact and manipulating the shooting opponents balance quickly on in the engagement. Without that key element it is simply back-peddling. The sprawl (footwork) is designed to get your legs out of the danger area, that must be adheared to even in this type of defense. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!
> 
> To grapple effectively you need timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation.
> 
> These buddies of yours are they at the same level as you...have they been training in BJJ as long as you h ave been training in Wing Chun...what are the variables!


First, lets clear a few things up. Your assumptions are running wild.
I am not a "striker".
I have no desire or need to have your belief.
I have no intrest in "making millions" or selling any one technique as 100% effective (unlike your amazing shooting skills)
I do not train in Wing Chun
Ok, not that thats out of the way, lets address your post. Proof of what exactly? Proof of me defending a takedown? If your so blinded by your own skill that you seriously believe its imposible to defend a takedown, you need to get out more. I'm not trying to be nasty either, but it seems your simply set on the belief that takedowns cannot be defended against. 

Your correct about whats needed to grapple effectively...thats why I posted it....again I'm missing your point. :idunno:

As I posted above, I'm not a WC person, but all the grappling partners I train with have been training much longer than myself. I have little intrest in training with someone with less experience than myself. All of them are actively competing or have in the past. In fact, I just met a new training partner who even fought some undercard UFC many years ago. Most are at least my size (6' 2" 207 lbs) or larger.

You seem to think that my explaining a takedown defense is me saying I never get taken down, thats not it at all. Do you mean to say you never miss a takedown you attempt? It seems your only recourse to someone avoiding a takedown is they must have been more skilled than the shooter....isn't that allwasy the case? Your too stuck on technique vs technique....its much more about the fighter and their training methods. 
Please re-read my post, I said I use a technique much like the one in the article, but a bit different. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!


 Wow, once again....read my posts. I spoke of partial truths and oversimplifications. I said nothing of raw ineffectiveness. Your twisting my words to try and discount me, thats disengenuous at best. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> The fact is to a certain degree a reaction can be had....scraping someones eyes may not force them to grab there face but it will blind them...punching someones throat may not get them to drop there guard but it will stun or kill them!


 To rely so heavily on an absolute in a fight is simply not the way I choose to do it. If the "setup" does indeed get a reaction I will use it....if the setup does not get a reaction I will have allready passed it and done something else. What if you punch someones throat and it doesn't stun or kill them? Thats all I'm saying....you must not rely so heavily on static techniques. If your shooting is simply incapable of being defended against, why hasn't it made its way into competitive grappling? I see many, many takedowns and shoots defended against in everyday training and in the UFC (for what its worth). 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!


You have not offended me or hurt my feelings (I have very little ego left). If I have done either to you I appologize, it is not what was intended. I really enjoy these types of discussion, I just want us to be on the same plane when discussing them.


One more thing.....


			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!


 So if I have effectively used a technique against grapplers (regardless of their training) then strikers never need to worry about grapplers again and I'm a millionaire? You have got to be kidding me. You just all over the map with this one. I dont evne understand what point your trying to make unless its that strikers are completely and totaly ineffective and defensless against grapplers. Is that what your trying to get across? Do you seriously think that in a fight one person will never get a technique to execute? It almost seems like you have not ever fought....do you normally fight in your training or do you mainly train drills and such?

7sm


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 13, 2006)

*MR STARMANTIS777*



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Andrew Green*
> _If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?_
> 
> ...


 
Sorry principled technique is not what the guy was talking about in the article...he was atlking about a specific techniqe...that is what i was commenting on!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!_
> 
> Lets not start off jumping to conclusions, whether this guy has faced qualified grapplers or not is simply not stated. It would appear he hasn't by the static explination he gave, but then he was also speaking to WC people who would take what he says and go train it,


 
I am not jumping to conclusions....it says in the first line of the article "from what I have seen on UFC"

He presented a document and that is how he has chosen to represent himself...if he represents himself with static explanation, that is how I take it!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!_
> 
> Wow, now your making the same mistake your criticizing the article for making. Your assumption that I was discussing what I saw and not what I have experienced is faulty and only _seems_ to prove your unwillingness to accept differing points of view. A shoot *is* very different than a tackle, your absolutely correct....whats your point?


 
You dont know that I dont train in Chinese style MA! I was also not refering to you but to the article (unless you wrote it)! People think that they have defended against someone trying to take there legs out so it is effective...but a shoot is a technique to be mastered and trained in...that was my point!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!_
> 
> Your taking keywords of mine and using them to mean something other than what I'm saying. By using the word "lunging" I meant to describe the action of the opponent coming in...I'll try and remember to use the word "shooting" for further refrence. It seems as if you didn't even read what I posted. I'm not in any way speaking of back-peddling. In fact, I said that type of movement would get you single legged. I think I understand what you are refering to as "the 8 points of unbalancing" maybe you could describe it a bit more, but we train the majority of our fighting to unbalance the opponent. Thats probably one of our most trained principles. I understand the effectiveness of shooting as I train in it and against it consistently. What I'm saying is that its simply not un-defendable. A well planned, well trained technique is still not so strong it cannot be defended against. It seems your unwilling to accept that others may have skill equal to or better than yours and thus your techniques might not work.


 
this was cleared up..it is not back peddling but a shifting of center..i understand that...but it is still moving away to aviod the shoot! Iam always willing to accept that I have betters...and that my techniques may not always work...but neither will the tech described in the article!

The eight points of unbalancing is a Judo principle...there are eight ways to push/pull the body to off balance it....if you need more clarification PM me...this could turn into a whole seperate thread! But it deals with grappling....unbalancing once you have your hands on your opponent!
I am speaking from a grapplers stand point!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?_
> 
> You should really re-read my posts a bit. I explained the point of the sprawl is not just simply the technique of the feet but also the dropping the weight on top of the opponent and such. The thing which makes this type of "sprawl" or "shoot defense" effective is creating contact and manipulating the shooting opponents balance quickly on in the engagement. Without that key element it is simply back-peddling. The sprawl (footwork) is designed to get your legs out of the danger area, that must be adheared to even in this type of defense.


 
I have re read your post...I stand by what I said....actually in my opinion...the dropping og the body is what makes the sprawl effective..because you redirect the opponent by pushing downward and therefore coming up short of your legs! 

I agree with what you say as just stepping back...becoming Back Peddling!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!
> 
> ...


 
Straightened.......if you are not a striker than you are a grappler and then you would know that the tech described inthe article wont work! I am sure my belief is not important to you...and it shouldnt be...but backing up your statement should be!

I dont have amazing shooting skills....like Mr Peterson doesnt have a amazing tackling the tackler technique...at least not pointed out in that article! 



> Ok, not that thats out of the way, lets address your post. Proof of what exactly? Proof of me defending a takedown? If your so blinded by your own skill that you seriously believe its imposible to defend a takedown, you need to get out more. I'm not trying to be nasty either, but it seems your simply set on the belief that takedowns cannot be defended against.


 
No I am not blinded by my own skill....nor do I believe shooting is a impenetrable fotress that cannot be breached..I just believe that the technique laid out in the article..even as a principle would not work!



> You seem to think that my explaining a takedown defense is me saying I never get taken down, thats not it at all. Do you mean to say you never miss a takedown you attempt? It seems your only recourse to someone avoiding a takedown is they must have been more skilled than the shooter....isn't that allwasy the case? Your too stuck on technique vs technique....its much more about the fighter and their training methods.
> Please re-read my post, I said I use a technique much like the one in the article, but a bit different.


 
Correct me if I am wrong...but the article was about a technique used to beat another....right at the bare bones of it......so I am reponding to that...of course it comes down to who is fighting...me vs Chuck Liddel...I know who I got my money on....me vs Tom Seabourne.....again a no brainer! I am not unbeatable...in the article he didnt say that this technique works against bob smith...he said it works...period!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!_
> 
> Wow, once again....read my posts. I spoke of partial truths and oversimplifications. I said nothing of raw ineffectiveness. Your twisting my words to try and discount me, thats disengenuous at best.


 
Re read the post....just calling it how I see it!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!_
> 
> ...


 
none taken...I like the honest reactin I have received from the three of you guys and mean no disrespect this is a open free discussion..and I hope we all walk away from here still in good terms....no ***** footing around just a honest frank discussion...thanks!



> One more thing.....
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> ...


 
No maybe a little all over the map...what I am saying is that the technique in the article wouldnt work...but you seem to think it will! Strikers are never useless against grapplers..as we all know it comes down to individuals.

I do fight in my class..but my years as a bouncer is where I see these things and have applied techniques!

*Mr ED-SWCKF*



			
				ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Yes and the article speaks of no testing..just having watched UFC!_
> 
> ...


 
All MA is hard work!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _No in Goju..and TKD there is movement...it is only really grounded at the time that your feet hit the floor..but is also a moving satnce...i think all stances need to be!_
> 
> ...


 
really even though it is just a variation of shotokan which comes from NAHA TE...which comes from Kung Fu!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Sorry that is my Judoka mind..a controlled fall is hitting the ground...if by falll you mean back up then my post doesnt apply!_
> 
> ...


 
Yes it does!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I hope you do and i hope that you let us know what he meant...a video would be nice...if you can swing it! Becasue if you have found a counter..we need to find a counter...counter! LOL!_
> 
> ...


 
I dont think he is arrogant...just that untested people shouldnt be making such statements! And the video just so that we can all be clear on what he meant...I for one would love to know..and if it turns out I am wrong something I would love to pick up!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Agreed! But no where in that article did he say.."it works for me!" He said it works!_
> 
> ...


 
Well it was abroad sweeping statement....people should be more clear in there writings (especially me)!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _That is all I am saying is that to make a statement like that..on a Idea...is dangerous..test first...article later!_
> 
> ...


 
Amen...but it would clear alot of stuff up!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _True..I suppose that because I had some idea of what he was doing I may have taken measures to counter...but in essence I just struck..and shot..and he couldnt move back quick enough!_
> 
> ...


 
As with everything else! I dont get your meaning are you saying that the man that teaches me Yau Kung Mun hasnt trained in this apparently well practiced stepping movement!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I was of course being sarcastic!_
> 
> ...


 
The Millions!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Exactlty....no proof...no pudding!_
> 
> ...


 
Exactly on paper it sounds ineffective...but if its proven to work...I will learn it...i am not that bull headed!

*Mr bcbernam777*



			
				bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate *balance and strength* that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!
> 
> ...


 
I would actually enjoy soem facts and figures and drawings as well....but as yet I have asked for proof and received NADA!

this is not about if you do this then I would do that...it is about one technique...the one laid out by peterson...that I feel would not work at all!

I do study a chinese MA....

People like myself....HMMMMMM.....what type of people is that exactly? thats a bit broad.....I would change my mind if you could back up what you say with facts...not what Sifu said type things...but things that are proven to work...and if that means that I am one ofthose type of people that need evidence before changing my mind....than yeah I am one of those type of people!


Now lets examine some bare facts;



> A) you dont know wing chun
> 
> B) I doubt you have studied wing chun


 
I learn Yau Kung Mun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yau_Kung_Mun



> C) you are in the camp with the majority of UFC afficienados you claim that TCM's are generally crap.


 
Well if i thought TCM was crap I wouldnt be trainning in one would I...I also train in Boxing, Hapkido, I did some TKD and Goju Ryu Karate...my grappling art is Judo!

Traditional enough...oh yeah and I dont learn at a MMA studio..I learn whole systems!



> D) I doubt you could have a decent paradigm shift.


 
Well you facts thus far have been wrong...if this is a example of *FACTS, *and yes you did use the term *bare facts...*then I wonder how I am supposed to have this shift...tell me how you came about these facts about me...the same way you will come up with facts about this tachnique...or the same way you had facts to label me and my people...hmmmmm!



> here are the facts as I see them:


 
AHHHHH more facts to consider...lets hope you did a bit more research into these!



> A) I have no doubt as to the reality that a properly trained grappler, can be a worthy and difficuolt opponao9nt, as well as any one who has properly trained (in most arts) can be a formidible and dangerous oponant.


 
Agreed it does come down to training but you are turning this into a art thing...I am only talking about one technique the one laid out by patterson...whats your point here?



> C) In the final analysis it does not matter which system you learn, if you are not willing to train your little gluteous Maximus off in a consistant way, then it doesnt matter how good your system is, you will never ever maximise its full potential. In translation "It comes down to the man"


 
True...but how does thsi apply to peterson saying his wing chun technique will work against a shoot....he didnt say that he could make it work...he said it is wintg chuns answer to the shoot! Once again...whats your point in relation to the article..I cant see it!



> D) If people wont train against other stylists then they will not have the sufficient experiance to learn how to deal with multiple situations.


 
Yes and Peterson hasnt trained against a opponent he said from what he saw...that is a dangerous thing to do...some wing chun guy is gonna read it..and get himself speared to the floor..I believe it wasnt properly researched by the way the article was presented!



> E) If you dont want to believe that WC has an answer to the problem then that aint no skin off my nose, as the saying goes "I know my opponants skill but he doesn't know mine" so that would put me at the advantage.


 
How are you ever supposed to know your opponents skill, unless he is a training partner...once again how does this apply to the technique in the article.....I dont understand this!



> I hope there wasn't too much sugar with that.


 
Just about as much as I gave!


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 13, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> *Mr bcbernam777*
> 
> 
> 
> I would actually enjoy soem facts and figures and drawings as well....but as yet I have asked for proof and received NADA!



I have already outlined a fact about the "root" however you are saying "oh yeah well thats just like every other style" I said it wasn't you disagree, I was telling you a fact but unless you see it written up in pretty book, with nice colourful pictures in it you wont believe it, cause uh you know if its not in a book it cant be a fact. And not once in the post did you ask for proof 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> this is not about if you do this then I would do that...it is about one technique...the one laid out by peterson...that I feel would not work at all!



Actually if you dont mind me pointing out this is the crux of the matter, you are saying that Peterson is creating this if/and description, and then you come back with your own if/and situation to explain why it wouldn't work :idunno:

and this is the crux 

"that I *feel *would not work at all!"

Then you need to eat less curry



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I do study a chinese MA....



Yes but not Wing Chun



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> People like myself....HMMMMMM.....what type of people is that exactly? thats a bit broad.....I would change my mind if you could back up what you say with facts...not what Sifu said type things...but things that are proven to work...and if that means that I am one ofthose type of people that need evidence before changing my mind....than yeah I am one of those type of people!



Well seeing that Sifu studied directly with Yip Man and learnt from him then I have full confidence in his estimations and judgements, as well his facts, again just because you cant see it written down in a book or an "official document" then obviously it cant be a fact, and I already have said that I have made it work, and I have proven it in my own experiance, and the only one I need to convince about whether my Sifus Wing Chun works is me.




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Now lets examine some bare facts;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats nice





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Well if i thought TCM was crap I wouldnt be trainning in one would I...I also train in Boxing, Hapkido, I did some TKD and Goju Ryu Karate...my grappling art is Judo!



You train in a lot of systems, theres some neuro confusion for you




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Traditional enough...oh yeah and I dont learn at a MMA studio..I learn whole systems!



If you think I give a damn about being "traditional" then you have missed the point of what I was trying to say, which does seem to be common thread in your posts





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Well you facts thus far have been wrong...if this is a example of *FACTS, *and yes you did use the term *bare facts...*then I wonder how I am supposed to have this shift...tell me how you came about these facts about me...the same way you will come up with facts about this tachnique...or the same way you had facts to label me and my people...hmmmmm!



Acording to you then again your opinion doesn't mean that much to me so I will get some shut eye tonight, and maybe I dont particlary want to assist you into having this shift.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> AHHHHH more facts to consider...lets hope you did a bit more research into these!



I put as much effort into it as I thought you deserved





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Agreed it does come down to training but you are turning this into a art thing...I am only talking about one technique the one laid out by patterson...whats your point here?



Oh I actuallly make a point you agree with but it is tainted by my turning it into an art thing (how tyhe hell you got that I wil never know, I am not the one who mentions he does about 7 different arts) the fact of the matter is that I made a valid point keeping arts out of it infact I stripped away the boundaries of arts by saying it is not the art but the man, then again maybe you need to actually read the post bfore commenting on it.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> True...but how does thsi apply to peterson saying his wing chun technique will work against a shoot....he didnt say that he could make it work...he said it is wintg chuns answer to the shoot! Once again...whats your point in relation to the article..I cant see it!


 

It means buddy that you have to train and train and train and then train some more not just understanding the technique but the principle behind it, the concept, and seeing the only word you have mentioned here is the word technique then obviosly you dont have that way of thinking, you are the guy that Bruce would be waking on the head telling you to look beyond the pointing finger. I have to train hard to understand how to apply the concepts of Wing Chun in certain situations, I need to become a thinker and just a doer, I need to see and understand all things and become free of mere if/and situations, and see ever nanosecond of a fight as it is, to adapt myself to the reality of its situation, if this is how David Peterson has adapted himself then so be it, I believe there be more answers in the system than that, but, and I was joking about the giving of the secrets stuff, but I shure as hell am not now going to "cast my pearls before swine". Funny the way you keep saying "agree" but then try to minimise that.




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes and Peterson hasnt trained against a opponent he said from what he saw...that is a dangerous thing to do...some wing chun guy is gonna read it..and get himself speared to the floor..I believe it wasnt properly researched by the way the article was presented!



Is that a fact? Do you have proof? how about some diagrams for that?





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> How are you ever supposed to know your opponents skill, unless he is a training partner...once again how does this apply to the technique in the article.....I dont understand this!



Have you every heard of your sensory organs, wonderful things they are. Become skilled enough and smart enough and you can learn about yor oponant even in the first 30 seconds of an encounter, not everything but enough so that you can adapt to him, but only if you are sufficently trained in you own way, have a way wich becomes no way.






			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Just about as much as I gave!



I am glad I could oblige


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 14, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> *Mr ED-SWCKF*
> 
> 
> 
> All MA is hard work!


 
Yeah i was talking more about a literal translation.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> really even though it is just a variation of shotokan which comes from NAHA TE...which comes from Kung Fu!


 
Yes really, there is a ton of variation in kung fu stances and footwork, even more so when they are evolved into new arts.  Wing chun is most definitely different to TKD and Shotokan.






			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes it does!


 
I'm glad you accept it.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I dont think he is arrogant...just that untested people shouldnt be making such statements! And the video just so that we can all be clear on what he meant...I for one would love to know..and if it turns out I am wrong something I would love to pick up!


 
What constitutes tested though, he could have worked it against some people with grappling skills and it may have worked, does it only constitute tested when he has worked it against UFC people?  Because it doesn't state weather he has tested it a lot or not.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Well it was abroad sweeping statement....people should be more clear in there writings (especially me)!


 
I think it should be accepted that things are often open to interpretation, we all do our best toi get our point accross but particularly in MA's its harder to do and often works a damn sight better to explain ourselves with accompanying physical demonstration.  Whilst we can endevour to be clear in writing we also need to be a little more savy in interpretation of what we read and understand that its quite possible when it doesn't make sense we would need to accept that perhaps the intended point isn't being conveyed.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Amen...but it would clear alot of stuff up!


 
yup.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> As with everything else! I dont get your meaning are you saying that the man that teaches me Yau Kung Mun hasnt trained in this apparently well practiced stepping movement!


 
I'm saying he would need to train that technique a lot as you have a lot of experience in your training and this yau kung mun chap isn't a wing chun guy either is he?  So it would take him a while to train it based on those things.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> The Millions!


 
Thank god!





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Exactly on paper it sounds ineffective...but if its proven to work...I will learn it...i am not that bull headed!


 
Learn to do it or learn to counter it?


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 14, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> *MR STARMANTIS777*
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry principled technique is not what the guy was talking about in the article...he was atlking about a specific techniqe...that is what i was commenting on!


 Lets be honest about the type of discussion we are having here. And while we are at it, lets be honest about the type of writing that can occur from it. Taking articles or written descriptions of martial techniques as hard absolutes and static "hardcoded" descriptions is not only naive but a bit disengenuous. It is simply an impossibility to write out in text a dynamic situation. You cannot cover every angle of a changing scenario on paper. I would extend to you the challenge of writting a description (such as the one in the article) of your favorite grappling technique and allow us to read it. I would challenge you to write it in a manner that leaves absolutely no room for possibilities of its non-effectiveness. It can't be done. You can't write a description of a dynamic technique that covers every angle of an infinite number of possibilities or changes. That being said you have to read written descriptions with that in mind. You have to see the manner in which the paper was written and take the text and go try it...test it....have it not work and find when it does work (if at all). You can't simply produce changing circumstances to the allready written papaer and expect the paper to cover it. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I am not jumping to conclusions....it says in the first line of the article "from what I have seen on UFC"


 Well, lets take a look....


			
				Tackling the Tackle said:
			
		

> From what I have seen in the 'UFC' matches, in my own training, and various other situations...


 Seems your trying to color the entire article from just one piece of one statement. Do you or I know what his experiences have been? You jumping to the conclusion that he has no real experiences that count in this matter and that this is all written from something he saw on Spike TV. If information is not given in the written piece we can't add or remove intention to it.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> He presented a document and that is how he has chosen to represent himself...if he represents himself with static explanation, that is how I take it!


 I would assume then that the article was not written for you. If you can't see past that little wall of yours, then you will be missing out on many amazing experiences and knowledge across the span of your lifetime. We *must* take into consideration the audience the article was written for. I would write much differently for a group of your training partners than I would for a group of my training parterns. Its just moer effective that way.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> You dont know that I dont train in Chinese style MA! I was also not refering to you but to the article (unless you wrote it)! People think that they have defended against someone trying to take there legs out so it is effective...but a shoot is a technique to be mastered and trained in...that was my point!


 You refered precisely to me saying what I said was in the same tone as the article, I was simply pointing out your mistake. It all depends on how you measure effectiveness. Your saying a technique working is not effectiveness, but then use that same standard to express effectiveness of your own techniques. If a shoot is a technique to be mastered and trained in, you dont think a counter to a shoot is the same way? 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> this was cleared up..it is not back peddling but a shifting of center..i understand that...but it is still moving away to aviod the shoot! Iam always willing to accept that I have betters...and that my techniques may not always work...but neither will the tech described in the article!


 Again, I have a problem with hard absolutes such as what you have mentioned. I also did not support "moving away" in my description of how the technique can work. Although the clasic sprawl could be defined as "moving away" as well. Its not point of the technique to be focused on the feet. Just like the sprawl you need to drop your center, manipulate their center, and get ahead of the attack.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> The eight points of unbalancing is a Judo principle...there are eight ways to push/pull the body to off balance it....if you need more clarification PM me...this could turn into a whole seperate thread! But it deals with grappling....unbalancing once you have your hands on your opponent!
> I am speaking from a grapplers stand point!


 How in the world could you unbalance your opponent without having made contact? Certainly your not supporting chi shooting or something are you?  Grappling is a huge part of my training in mantis kung fu and like I said allready, one of our main objectives is unbalancing the opponent and keepign them unbalanced throughout the engagement. You too focused on seperating styles. Its either a grapplers standpoint or a strikers standpoint with you. Thats again what I consider naive. Its not so seperated as you might think...at least with many. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I have re read your post...I stand by what I said....actually in my opinion...the dropping og the body is what makes the sprawl effective..because you redirect the opponent by pushing downward and therefore coming up short of your legs!
> 
> I agree with what you say as just stepping back...becoming Back Peddling!


 Sounds like we agree then...interesting. The same thing you just described as making the sprawl effective is what makes these types of technique effective as well. You dont seriously think the article was in favor of allowing the shooting opponent to grab the legs do you? 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Straightened.......if you are not a striker than you are a grappler and then you would know that the tech described inthe article wont work! I am sure my belief is not important to you...and it shouldnt be...but backing up your statement should be!


 Again, your so blinded by your own seperating mindset. I wouldn't consider myself either, but a general mix of both. To label people as only "grappler" or "striker" leave much to be missed. 

Explain to me how I could "back up my statement" and I will attempt to do so for you. Remember this discussion though when you go to type that you weren't refering to me but the article.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> No I am not blinded by my own skill....nor do I believe shooting is a impenetrable fotress that cannot be breached..I just believe that the technique laid out in the article..even as a principle would not work!


 Now it wont work even as a principle? Which is it? First it was that the technique was written as static and so it must be taken that way, and now it wouldn't work even as a principle. Maybe you should stop being so agressively concrete on your belief of written material until you have actually experienced it. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong...but the article was about a technique used to beat another....right at the bare bones of it......so I am reponding to that...of course it comes down to who is fighting...me vs Chuck Liddel...I know who I got my money on....me vs Tom Seabourne.....again a no brainer! I am not unbeatable...in the article he didnt say that this technique works against bob smith...he said it works...period!


 So by saying a technique works, I'm saying it works 100% of the time regardless of the changes in environment or situation? C'mon man, your being silly now just trying to hang on to your original statements. You dont have to be concerned about "loosing face" here. It all comes down the the fighter and their training, but sayinga trained fighter couldn't use a technique like this is pretty far out there, especially from someone who doesn't give it enough credit to even train in and against it. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> No maybe a little all over the map...what I am saying is that the technique in the article wouldnt work...but you seem to think it will! Strikers are never useless against grapplers..as we all know it comes down to individuals.
> 
> I do fight in my class..but my years as a bouncer is where I see these things and have applied techniques!


 Um...I'm not really sure I understand what your saying here. Your so concrete in your own knowledge and skill that your willing to read a article about a dynamic technique and just bow up and say it wouldn't work against you. Thats dangerous my friend. 

So your experience is from controled, non-lethal situations outside the guise of sport, competition, or self defense where your opponents are basically overweight drunken people who are not martial artists or training at all? Maybe you should expand your field of vision and spend some time against true fighters training to fight. Might be a new world of experiences and knowledge just waiting out there for you.

7sm


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 14, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> I have already outlined a fact about the "root" however you are saying "oh yeah well thats just like every other style" I said it wasn't you disagree, I was telling you a fact but unless you see it written up in pretty book, with nice colourful pictures in it you wont believe it, cause uh you know if its not in a book it cant be a fact. And not once in the post did you ask for proof
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You seem to be upset....not my intent I will humbly bow out of any futher converstaion with you on this topic....but hope we can continue to debate across this forum on other threads!

*bows respectfully*



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _*MR STARMANTIS777*
> 
> ...


 
I agree...however I think that I will decline your challange as I find this kind of writing to be dangerous...if i cant show you...I cant teach you! I say that the technique described will not work because it doesnt take into account all variables....not every one will read it with your attitude in mind ( that we need to understand that it is static)! I think you gave me the description as to why it wont work....its to static!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I am not jumping to conclusions....it says in the first line of the article "from what I have seen on UFC"_
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps his experience isnt so great.....perhaps it is.....what you say is right..I conced point here!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _You dont know that I dont train in Chinese style MA! I was also not refering to you but to the article (unless you wrote it)! People think that they have defended against someone trying to take there legs out so it is effective...but a shoot is a technique to be mastered and trained in...that was my point!_
> 
> You refered precisely to me saying what I said was in the same tone as the article, I was simply pointing out your mistake. It all depends on how you measure effectiveness. Your saying a technique working is not effectiveness, but then use that same standard to express effectiveness of your own techniques. If a shoot is a technique to be mastered and trained in, you dont think a counter to a shoot is the same way?


 
Yes that is true....but I never outlined how the technique would go down (pun intended)!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _The eight points of unbalancing is a Judo principle...there are eight ways to push/pull the body to off balance it....if you need more clarification PM me...this could turn into a whole seperate thread! But it deals with grappling....unbalancing once you have your hands on your opponent!
> I am speaking from a grapplers stand point!_
> ...


 
Actually...in boxing..you move towards and away from your opponent to catch him off balance...there is no laying on of hands!

About the grappler/striker standpoint I conced point as well...forgive my being naieve...what I should say is defender (Technique excecutor)/Attacker (shooter!)

Out of interest and a bit off tangent..this mantis grappling, is it standing grappling or ground fighting?...because I have always seen grappling and ground fighting as two seperate things!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _He presented a document and that is how he has chosen to represent himself...if he represents himself with static explanation, that is how I take it!_
> 
> I would assume then that the article was not written for you. If you can't see past that little wall of yours, then you will be missing out on many amazing experiences and knowledge across the span of your lifetime. We *must* take into consideration the audience the article was written for. I would write much differently for a group of your training partners than I would for a group of my training parterns. Its just moer effective that way.


 
I concecde point here..it probabbly wasnt meant for me..but surely he realised others would read it!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Correct me if I am wrong...but the article was about a technique used to beat another....right at the bare bones of it......so I am reponding to that...of course it comes down to who is fighting...me vs Chuck Liddel...I know who I got my money on....me vs Tom Seabourne.....again a no brainer! I am not unbeatable...in the article he didnt say that this technique works against bob smith...he said it works...period!_
> 
> So by saying a technique works, I'm saying it works 100% of the time regardless of the changes in environment or situation? C'mon man, your being silly now just trying to hang on to your original statements. You dont have to be concerned about "loosing face" here. It all comes down the the fighter and their training, but sayinga trained fighter couldn't use a technique like this is pretty far out there, especially from someone who doesn't give it enough credit to even train in and against it.


 
No a technique to me is effective if you can make it work more times than it fails...IMHO the technique described will fail more times than it works!

As for the trained fighters I mentioned....I was only highlighting that I didnt think myself unbeatable! 

I have given many points in this thread..and even changed the stand point...I train in it as much as I could..with my Yau Kung Mun sifu...if I had the opportunity to test it against a wing chun player I would...but I do live in a third world country!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _No maybe a little all over the map...what I am saying is that the technique in the article wouldnt work...but you seem to think it will! Strikers are never useless against grapplers..as we all know it comes down to individuals.
> 
> ...


 
I didnt say..I never said it wouldnt work against me...I just said that it wouldnt work against a shooter! I cant read about a dynamic technique as it wasnt presented in the article...as the technique is presented it wont work!



> So your experience is from controled, non-lethal situations outside the guise of sport, competition, or self defense where your opponents are basically overweight drunken people who are not martial artists or training at all? Maybe you should expand your field of vision and spend some time against true fighters training to fight. Might be a new world of experiences and knowledge just waiting out there for you.


 
Ok lets address this...how is fighting outside of the ring...controlled and non lethal...its not just overweight people that drink..and even if it was a fat drunk with a knife..is a fat drunk with a knife...a fat drunk with a pool cue...is a fat drunk with a pool cue....a fat drunk with four fat freinds is staill a fat drunk with four freinds...true ejecting people from clubs is easy...but when they are waiting to assault you in a back alley as you make your way home after working 12 hours is never a good experience..and I have been on the receiving end of some terrible hididngs! I do fight boxers, Karateka, Tae Kwon Doists, Judokas, hapkidoists..and my Yau Kun Mun Sifu kicks my *** on a regular basis...maybe not in the ring..but in Judo training and match fighting is not so different...once a week at karate we do IRI KUMI...full contact Sparring! I have had my share of experience! But you belittle it for this I must say that thsi statement was hurtful!



			
				[B said:
			
		

> ED-SWCKF[/B]]
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _*Mr ED-SWCKF*
> ...


 
OK!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _really even though it is just a variation of shotokan which comes from NAHA TE...which comes from Kung Fu!_
> 
> ...


 
Point....there will be great differences but surely they would be some similarity...like I said about Goju Kata can be found in Whit Crane!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I dont think he is arrogant...just that untested people shouldnt be making such statements! And the video just so that we can all be clear on what he meant...I for one would love to know..and if it turns out I am wrong something I would love to pick up!_
> 
> ...


 
Not UFC but a scientific approach to it...out of ten times how many times it worked...what the main points were..backed up with some evidence...to me the sucess of a tech means that it works more times than it fails...and it will fail from time to time!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Well it was abroad sweeping statement....people should be more clear in there writings (especially me)!_
> 
> ...


 
Point!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Exactly on paper it sounds ineffective...but if its proven to work...I will learn it...i am not that bull headed!_
> 
> ...


 
Both actually!


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 14, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I agree...however I think that I will decline your challange as I find this kind of writing to be dangerous...if i cant show you...I cant teach you! I say that the technique described will not work because it doesnt take into account all variables....not every one will read it with your attitude in mind ( that we need to understand that it is static)! I think you gave me the description as to why it wont work....its to static!



If thats the case, why are martial arts boards like this so popular?
No one technique will ever take into account _all_ variables. That is just wishful thinking.
The written text is static by definition. To read a written explination and try to frame it against changing and dynamic possibilities is simply dishonest representation.
Full circle to my original point that as a principle with the correct focus and feel, the technique can work.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes that is true....but I never outlined how the technique would go down (pun intended)!


 So we can discuss a technique if we stay with ambiguous, non technical, non defining language? There has to be some understanding between author and reader or the intent is lost. Your reading the article saying, "that wont work because I would do ______". Thats true and still does not negate the effectiveness of said article. If the technique is described as static, so is the attackers movements. You can't discuss a written piece of work and keep one part static while changing another. The article simply did not give enough information to really be an effective description. I took that upon myself and gave explination of how I have made a similar technique work with simply alive modification to my opponents actions. We can discuss the dynamic attributes of the application of such techniques, but trying to hold only part of an article to static decription while allowing another part of the same article to change is dishonest. 

I would be very happy to continue discussing the dynamic attributes of shooting and defending against shoots, but this is simply not an equally honest debate (so far).



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Actually...in boxing..you move towards and away from your opponent to catch him off balance...there is no laying on of hands!
> 
> About the grappler/striker standpoint I conced point as well...forgive my being naieve...what I should say is defender (Technique excecutor)/Attacker (shooter!)
> 
> Out of interest and a bit off tangent..this mantis grappling, is it standing grappling or ground fighting?...because I have always seen grappling and ground fighting as two seperate things!



Moving "towards and away from" in order to catch your opponent makinga mistake to his center is much different from your originally posted idea of actually unbalancing your opponent. You said specifically you were refering to "pushing/pulling" the opponenets body to unbalance them.
I think you misunderstood my poiont about the "grappler/striker" thing. You weren't using it to describe an "attacker/defender" but rather to describe a group of people. You said I was either a "grappler or a striker". You meant to say I was either an attacker of defender? I dont think so.
In the mantis system there is much standing "grappling" as well as a multitude of groundwork training. Both standing and ground rely on the same principles.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> No a technique to me is effective if you can make it work more times than it fails...IMHO the technique described will fail more times than it works!


 Thats not an accurate measurement of effectiveness. What your describing is skill not effectiveness of a specific technique. If I was to apply a specific technique on one of our beginner students it's "effectiveness" (as measured by your statement) would be quite good. However, the same technique applied by me on my instructor would see a terrible decline in "effectiveness". I propose that the technique would fail in your mind because you have nothing invested in it. You have not trained in it or against it and therefore have not seen its ability to work...therefore leaving in your mind only its failure. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I didnt say..I never said it wouldnt work against me...I just said that it wouldnt work against a shooter! I cant read about a dynamic technique as it wasnt presented in the article...as the technique is presented it wont work!


 Yet your completely happy to use absolutes and concrete _opinion_ as hard fact? It might not work against a shooter, but then its worked for me against a shooter....I guess we are full circle again and must realize its not about the style, art, or technique....but more about the individual, their skill, training, and methods.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> But you belittle it for this I must say that thsi statement was hurtful!


 I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, I sincerely did not mean to. What I meant was that applying techniques on individuals who are quite possibly inebriated and most possibly not trained fighters....is much different than applying said techniques on trained fighters in the heat of combat. If your "fighting it out" with your patrons I would suggest another line of work...but thats just me.

Bottom line is that without experience and understanding of the intricacies of a technique, its hard to say 100% it will not work. I'll extend to you an invitation, if your ever in the East Texas area, to come and see how we train these technqiues and how we work their applications. It might open your eyes to some different types of training and skills. No challenege or anything, just an open invitation for training. 

:asian:
7sm


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 15, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Not UFC but a scientific approach to it...out of ten times how many times it worked...what the main points were..backed up with some evidence...to me the sucess of a tech means that it works more times than it fails...and it will fail from time to time!


 
Thats true but the article doesn't say he hasn't tested it, he may have worked that technique a lot and it may work to great effect on the people he is trying it out on.  I think his opening line may be misleading and gives a false immpression of his intent there after.  We both know that the technique is beatable just as it is possible to make it sucessful, the individuals involved will make it what it is and to ever be sure of one technique is fool hardy as they are all open to expoitation.  Not the best article but not worth all the fuss either, just one guys opinion which everyone is free to agree or disagree with.  But i tend to give people the benifit of the doubt until i see it, feel it etc.


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 15, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _I agree...however I think that I will decline your challange as I find this kind of writing to be dangerous...if i cant show you...I cant teach you! I say that the technique described will not work because it doesnt take into account all variables....not every one will read it with your attitude in mind ( that we need to understand that it is static)! I think you gave me the description as to why it wont work....its to static!_
> 
> If thats the case, why are martial arts boards like this so popular?



To learn and grow!



> No one technique will ever take into account _all_ variables. That is just wishful thinking.



Then articles shouldnt be written in such tones!



> The written text is static by definition. To read a written explination and try to frame it against changing and dynamic possibilities is simply dishonest representation.



Please show me where I changed the text to dynamic against static...at one stage I said that back peddling was only helping the shoot...but we are at agreement that the technique is not back peddling...I said the WC tech vs a Shoot....that is what the article is about!



> Full circle to my original point that as a principle with the correct focus and feel, the technique can work.



I disagree!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Yes that is true....but I never outlined how the technique would go down (pun intended)!_
> 
> So we can discuss a technique if we stay with ambiguous, non technical, non defining language? There has to be some understanding between author and reader or the intent is lost. Your reading the article saying, "that wont work because I would do ______".




i never have ever said that if you do this I will do that..I sid that tech vs Shoot...thats all I said!




> If the technique is described as static, so is the attackers movements.




I never said that the shoot was dynamic...it is one tech against another no variables...no contest.... the shoot wins!




> You can't discuss a written piece of work and keep one part static while changing another.




I never made one static and one dynamic..Technique X vs Shoot...that is what I am talking about!




> The article simply did not give enough information to really be an effective description.




My point...as it is laid out in the article it is not effective....work it a little and it may be...but the article tech thats a big NO!




> I took that upon myself and gave explination of how I have made a similar technique work with simply alive modification to my opponents actions.




My point..you had to warp it...the technique as it is laid out wont work!




> I would be very happy to continue discussing the dynamic attributes of shooting and defending against shoots, but this is simply not an equally honest debate (so far).




Exactly....you keep thinking I am favouring the shoot and making one static and the other dynamic...I am taking the article at face value...there are tons of ways to effectively stop a shoot from being effective...BUT...as the tech is laid out in the article I would say that is not one of them....even you said you had to majke modifications!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Actually...in boxing..you move towards and away from your opponent to catch him off balance...there is no laying on of hands!
> 
> ...




yes I was talking about the pushing/ pulling of the eight points of unbalance in Judo...but you asked me""how do you unbalance someone without touching them?" I was just going a bit off tangent there!



> No one technique will ever take into account _all_ variables. That is just wishful thinking.



Yeas i understand that but what variables are involved here...one tech vs shoot...show me variables!




> [*]I think you misunderstood my poiont about the "grappler/striker" thing. You weren't using it to describe an "attacker/defender" but rather to describe a group of people. You said I was either a "grappler or a striker". You meant to say I was either an attacker of defender? I dont think so.




I have admitted my mistake...perhaps I spend to much time having these types of  discussions...but when we talk about this article, in my mind I see a Wing Chun player vs a Grappler...this was wrong of me.....I meant defender vs attacker...which in my mind was a striker defending against a grapplers attack! I now kno wthat you have grappling and ground fighting..so I am corrected!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _No a technique to me is effective if you can make it work more times than it fails...IMHO the technique described will fail more times than it works!_
> 
> Thats not an accurate measurement of effectiveness. What your describing is skill not effectiveness of a specific technique. If I was to apply a specific technique on one of our beginner students it's "effectiveness" (as measured by your statement) would be quite good. However, the same technique applied by me on my instructor would see a terrible decline in "effectiveness". I propose that the technique would fail in your mind because you have nothing invested in it. You have not trained in it or against it and therefore have not seen its ability to work...therefore leaving in your mind only its failure.




Then let me remake my statemenet...the amount of times it works against an opponent of equal skill...should be more than the time it fails against an opponents of equal skill!

Now you are just nit picking..if you want to train against someone with less skill..I wonder how effective any of your techs will be?

Once again I find it strange how you all know so much about me...and what I think...and how I train..I took the article to my Sifu he read it and tried to apply it...it failed...on saturday we are going to have another go at it...but this time with a different guy (another grappler not me)...that has ne TCMA training and see what happens!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _But you belittle it for this I must say that thsi statement was hurtful!_
> 
> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, I sincerely did not mean to. What I meant was that applying techniques on individuals who are quite possibly inebriated and most possibly not trained fighters....is much different than applying said techniques on trained fighters in the heat of combat. If your "fighting it out" with your patrons I would suggest another line of work...but thats just me.




LOL....I left bouncing ages ago...I just needed the work while I was at University! And liek I sadi I have had my ffair amount of fights against trained fighters....I just dont partake in tournaments..glory/trophies is not what MA is about for me!




> Bottom line is that without experience and understanding of the intricacies of a technique, its hard to say 100% it will not work.




as the tech as laid out in the article will not work....because it will fail more times than it works!


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 15, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Thats true but the article doesn't say he hasn't tested it, he may have worked that technique a lot and it may work to great effect on the people he is trying it out on. I think his opening line may be misleading and gives a false immpression of his intent there after. We both know that the technique is beatable just as it is possible to make it sucessful, the individuals involved will make it what it is and to ever be sure of one technique is fool hardy as they are all open to expoitation. Not the best article but not worth all the fuss either, just one guys opinion which everyone is free to agree or disagree with. But i tend to give people the benifit of the doubt until i see it, feel it etc.


 
Exactly.....but with all the McDojos about I give no one the benifit of the doubt...het different strokes for different folks!


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 15, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Exactly.....but with all the McDojos about I give no one the benifit of the doubt...het different strokes for different folks!


 
Well by benifit of the doubt i meant not worrying if it worked or not until i was in a place to judge for myself.  I mean the amount of energy put into worrying about all the articles written that don't come accross so well is a real waste.  And as such its really not a wing chun approach as we try to be as economical as we can with energy and movement.  Point is that a guy has written something that can't be proven to you until you are in the same room with him, we can sit and wax intellectual about it all day but i'd prefer to kindly refuse to take anyone at their word when it comes to martial arts.  I mean that in the most respectful way but i feel what i said in my prior post sounded like you should accept it as truth without seeing it and that wasn't my intent.  People talk and talk and talk and it  often gets no where to me its a waste especially as we aren't even discussing this with the guy who wrote it.


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 15, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Well by benifit of the doubt i meant not worrying if it worked or not until i was in a place to judge for myself. I mean the amount of energy put into worrying about all the articles written that don't come accross so well is a real waste. And as such its really not a wing chun approach as we try to be as economical as we can with energy and movement. Point is that a guy has written something that can't be proven to you until you are in the same room with him, we can sit and wax intellectual about it all day but i'd prefer to kindly refuse to take anyone at their word when it comes to martial arts. I mean that in the most respectful way but i feel what i said in my prior post sounded like you should accept it as truth without seeing it and that wasn't my intent. People talk and talk and talk and it often gets no where to me its a waste especially as we aren't even discussing this with the guy who wrote it.


 
True..I always believed if I cant show you...I cant teach you! That the only way to give something credit or not is if you test it yourself!


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 16, 2006)

The only way Savage that you will be convinced is if you hop on the next plane from Suva to Sydney, I will PM you my address, and I will give you a demonstration that will be better than any diagram. Then maybe you will understand and have a little more appreciation for Wing Chun (note: no this is not a challenge but a genuine invitation)


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 16, 2006)

How about just posting a short video clip or some photos?


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 16, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> To learn and grow!


Your contradicting yourself. You stated that you can't teach unless you can show, but then say martial arts forums are to learn from. Hows that? It seems your holding to a standard that isn't true just to prove this one article wrong. Why? 


			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Then articles shouldnt be written in such tones!


Thats the thing, it wasn't. Your missing my point, no written text can cover every possible angle or possibility. The technique described will work within the confines of the situation it was written for, same for any technique described by writing. Your applying your own "feelings" or "opinions" to the article which are not there in print. Your assuming he is writing the article to say "this specific technique done precisely this way will defeat the shoot every time". No where in the article does he say that. Many "shooters" or those who spend a great deal of time wroking groundwork have this sort of ego issue where they hear or see something talking about defending their precious technique and they immediately become defensive and even sometimes aggressive. Why? 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Please show me where I changed the text to dynamic against static...at one stage I said that back peddling was only helping the shoot...but we are at agreement that the technique is not back peddling...I said the WC tech vs a Shoot....that is what the article is about!


I didn't say you changed the text, again maybe you should read posts more carefully in the future. What I said was you are changing the scenario given to meet your will but leaving the techniuque to suit your agenda. The article was written against a set idea of what attack it defends against. In fact, the article speaks of avoiding contact alltogether, meaning its meant to be defending against a "shoot" or lunging attack from long distance, _not_ from close quarters where contact has allready been made. You changed up how you would shoot and defeat this technique and in doing so went outside the parameters of the aticle itself. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I disagree!


Your going to regardless of aything we say here. Why even continue the discussion? Thats a big point I tried to make earlier. If you immediately set your mind about things and refuse to allow for honest contimplation of something you are going to miss out on alot of really good experiences and knowledge. There is nothing I could say or do to make you agree, however the idea of short video or pictures of your techniques is a great idea! 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> i never have ever said that if you do this I will do that..I sid that  tech vs Shoot...thats all I said!


Actually no you spoke of seting up the shoot, unbalancing the opponent,  etc, etc. You did *not* simply say "the shoot". You allowed for detailed explination of how you can perform the shoot, or why the shoot is effective yet all the while disallowing any explination or description of how the technique can be setup, or effective. That my friend is dishonest debate and leads nowhere. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I never said that the shoot was dynamic...it is one tech against another  no variables...no contest.... the shoot wins!



I dont understand your thinking here. There is no one static shoot. There will always be variables such as timing, speed, power, relaxation of muscles, angles, your opponents movements, etc. Your idea of putting static technique versus static technique is as unrealistic as the writer of the article saying this technique will work 100% of the time (which he did not say by the way). You arguing on an unrealistic level and that is never productive regardless of personal beliefs.





			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I never made one    static and one dynamic..Technique X vs Shoot...that is what I am talking    about!
> My point...as it is laid out in the article it is not effective....work it a little and it may be...but the article tech thats a big NO!
> My point..you had    to warp it...the technique as it is laid out wont work!
> Exactly....you keep thinking I am favouring the shoot and making one static and the other dynamic...I am taking the article at face value...there are tons of ways to effectively stop a shoot from being effective...BUT...as the tech is laid out in the article I would say that is not one of them....even you said you had to majke modifications!


There is too much here to address. Your argument has an unrealistic crux. Its basically a logical fallacy at best. You have offered that the technique will fail against a shoot every time, yet you offer no proof or examples of it doing so. I've even explained how its worked for me and that I use it quite often against shoots. If your going to continue your repetitous arguemnt of simply, "it wont work" please offer some type of explination or documentation of why it wont work. Your opinion is simply not enough to disprove the techniques effectiveness. 

I didn't make modification, I simply allowed for the changing environment. Again, your implication that technqiues (any technique) will be effective and work across a timeline without alive reaction to changing environments is simply inexperienced and in my opinion naive. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> yes I was talking about the pushing/ pulling of the eight points of unbalance in Judo...but you asked me""how do you unbalance someone without touching them?" I was just going a bit off tangent there!
> Yeas i understand    that but what variables are involved here...one tech vs shoot...show    me variables!


First, its simply not possible to "unbalance" someone without contact. Sorry to strike down your strongly adheared to opinions, but that is not physically possible. You may be able to watch a person move around and catch a time that they make a mistake and loose their own balance, but then if your fighting people who routinely loose their own balance without contact from anyone, I might suggest better fighting partners.

Second, ther are variables present in any situation. I'm sorry, but one static execution of a technique (even the mighty shoot) will not work every time done exactly the same way. On the surface it may look that way, thats why I suggested more fighting experiences. When you really get down to the science of fighting you will see that the ability to adapt and deal with changing situations and different types of scenarios will save your butt....often. Its just an unrealistic appraoch, and one I dont think you really believe, to say there are no variables to a technique; "It can be done exactly the same way (angle, speed, power, etc) everytime nad still work everytime. Thats simply not true in any technqiue. If you can't adapt and apply things in an alive manner on a resisting and changing opponent....you can't fight in my book. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Once again I find it strange how you all know so much about me...and what I think...and how I train..I took the article to my Sifu he read it and tried to apply it...it failed...on saturday we are going to have another go at it...but this time with a different guy (another grappler not me)...that has ne TCMA training and see what happens!


Thats exactly my point. Your holding the technqiue as a static set group of exact movements, while allowing the shoot to be undefined and mutable. If we reverse that flawed logic, we will see the effectivenss swap form your shoot to the other technique quite quickly. This is a major pet peive of mine, with people who train unrealistically. If its not changing to meet the situation....its simply not realistic in my opinion. 




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> as the tech as laid    out in the article will not work....because it will fail more times    than it works!


Because you say so, but you have offered no proof, explination, or demonstration of it. The idea of pictures or video would be a great tool in your argument and ability to prove this technique flawed.

7sm


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> How about just posting a short video clip or some photos?


 
Well, the thing is a video or pictures cant demonstrate the SLT energy that I am talking about, its like tasting it, you got to feel what I am talking about instead of seeing it, although what I could do is grab a friend of mine who is into grappling and tape us, but Suva is rather close to Sydney


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 16, 2006)

Ok there seems to be some confusion as to what I am trying to say...this is it in a nut shell....a shoot doesnt start with laying on of hands (were trying to hurt not heal...a shoot happens to close the distance so that we can take out the legs...that is the shoot and yes shoots are usually set up but for the sake of this thread lets not set it up and just look at the shoot!

Now the defender is using:



> 'Baat Jaam Do' ("eight-slash knives") form, namely the exaggerated retreating footwork found within this form.


 
Now Batt Jaam Do is a form of knife fighting....but if you are only using the large backward movement to move the front leg away from danger:



> I want to totally avoid contact (short of landing whatever striking techniques I can along the way), so the footwork from the "knives" form, which deliberately takes the front leg further back (as it needs to be when a "knife-wielding" exponent faces an opponent with a long pole or similar weapon, whereby the legs must be kept out of harms way), thus allowing me to draw the attacker further forward and off balance,


 
Right here is a problem....a shoot is not a flying tackle...you would be hard pressed to see a flying anything come from a grappler....it is a low leg charge...it is not a slow motion...it is quick and if you are drawing in a person (drawing futher forward), he is in range to grab your other leg for a single leg takedown...you see a shoot is a double leg takedown...that turns into a single leg takedown when a opponent steps back! What I am saying is that you step your right leg back.....that brings your left leg forward!



> while my hands can ward off the upper body or arms and literally "encourage" his/her forward momentum so that they are keep out of position.


 
Just abit of info from the article regarding this:



> Even the Gracies talk about the fact that they are expecting to get hit on the way in, but that this is an acceptable and necessary part of the grappler's strategy.


 
So it is taken into account by the shooter!



> Now, the difference between this type of footwork and that which I described previously (the "knife" form footwork) is that instead of drawing the left foot back in line with the right foot as described above, the left foot is pulled right back so that it is in much the same position as it would be when I do a pivot, or the stepping in the 'Cham Kiu' form. To use the clock-face model again, the right foot is at the 5 o'clock position while the left foot is now pretty much on the 6 o'clock spot. Against a weapon, such as the pole, this is a safety measure because the "normal" side-step ('Tui Ma') action would leave the front leg open to attack from the longer weapon (against empty hands it's ideal, for trapping, etc., but against a longer weapon, it remains vulnerable, both to attack and balance problems), so by pulling the front leg further back in this exaggerated fashion, it draws it out of the line of fire.


 
Yeah...pulling the left leg in an exaggerated line out of the line of fire leaves the right leg where exactly...all by its lonesome in the front...once again a shoot is a two leg attack! Thsi here wiouldnt prevent a non set up shoot from reaching its target!



> Now, *if we apply this same strategy* to the rushing/lunging attack under consideration, the outcome is the same: it keeps you out of the reach of the enemy and allows you to outflank his/her position by shifting both backwards and laterally.


 
The bold text shows how he is saying that the technique works....no principle....but apply this technique which is used for weapons fighting....sorry I cant see it working...maybe against overweight drunks...but against someone with some skills I doubt it!



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _
> To learn and grow!_
> ...


 
To learn about philosophy...understand things more...principles (which the article states it is clearly not about)...but not to learn technique if not why would i want to even go to the Dojo I can just learn from every article I read!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _Then articles shouldnt be written in such tones!_
> 
> ...


 
Yes...listen I agree that is what makes this type of writing so dangerous...it CANNOT cover all angles!



> The technique described will work within the confines of the situation it was written for, same for any technique described by writing.


 
Not this one....see the earlier section of my post!



> Your applying your own "feelings" or "opinions" to the article which are not there in print.


 
Isnt the forum about expressing your opinions! How am I applying my feelings to the article?



> Your assuming he is writing the article to say "this specific technique done precisely this way will defeat the shoot every time". No where in the article does he say that.


 
Right here:



> Now, *if we apply this same strategy* to the rushing/lunging attack under consideration, the outcome is the same: it keeps you out of the reach of the enemy and allows you to outflank his/her position by shifting both backwards and laterally.


 


> Many "shooters" or those who spend a great deal of time wroking groundwork have this sort of ego issue where they hear or see something talking about defending their precious technique and they immediately become defensive and even sometimes aggressive. Why?


 
thsi is not about Ego...maybe we can reverse the coin and ask why do the wing chun players get deffensive and agressive when someone says ther footwork and defence wont work! This sort of thing doesnt fly!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _
> Please show me where I changed the text to dynamic against static...at one stage I said that back peddling was only helping the shoot...but we are at agreement that the technique is not back peddling...I said the WC tech vs a Shoot....that is what the article is about!_
> ...


 
let me quote a earlier post:



> The written text is static by definition. To read a written explination and try to frame it against changing and dynamic possibilities is simply dishonest representation.


 
To whom were you refering then?



> The article was written against a set idea of what attack it defends against. In fact, the article speaks of avoiding contact alltogether, meaning its meant to be defending against a "shoot" or lunging attack from long distance, _not_ from close quarters where contact has allready been made. You changed up how you would shoot and defeat this technique and in doing so went outside the parameters of the aticle itself.


 
I think you need to re read the thread....I did say that the shoot is usually set up..but that was for a whole seperate matter...read the beggining of this post..that is what I am talking about...clear and simple!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _
> I disagree!_
> ...


 
I have agreed with alot of things..even changed my mind about the fact that the tech in the article is not back peddling...it is back peddling and stepping to the side! That also doesnt fly!

Why do I continue this discussion...well because people keep responding!

As for the video...we all know what a shoot is...show us what this side step looks like!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _
> I never said that the shoot was dynamic...it is one tech against another no variables...no contest.... the shoot wins!_
> ...


 
Static or dynamis...variables between equally skilled opponents.....the shoot wins.....I am just saying if the defender/attacker are of equal skill...strength and speed..and whatever else you want to put in as a variable (which doesnt appear in the article as you are so fond of saying)...the shoot will win more times than it fails!

As to the rest of your post i think I laid it out in the beggining of this post...as for the unbalanvcing..it is amatter of timing at one point as someone shifts position there body is at a point of less balance...that is when you strike and set them right off...but that is boxing...maybe not in Mighty Wing Chun!

I leave this argument now because like me...you are to buull headed to see facts...posting a video wont help because you will only say that the back peddling and stepping to the side is useless...or not how you do it...but yeah good luck with your training and learn how to sprawl...you may just need the back up technique!!

As for the challen...errr open invitation....you could always catch a plane and fly here...my dojo is at the China Club in Suva..we train on Mon, Wed, Thur....from 5:30-7:00...we can then put your back peddling with side step to the test!

My phone Number is (679) 9213201


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 16, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> As for the challen...errr open invitation....you could always catch a plane and fly here...my dojo is at the China Club in Suva..we train on Mon, Wed, Thur....from 5:30-7:00...we can then put your back peddling with side step to the test!
> 
> My phone Number is (679) 9213201



Hey whats the deal? Now tell everone i gave you my home address, it seriously wasnt a challenge. And who said i was going to side step, like i said there are other ways of dealing with it. And about being Bull headed, please dont let the kettle start calling the pot black, it just dont sit right. And guess what we where plannig on a holiday in 2007, i could convince her (my wife) for the end of 2006 (I do so love cyclone time) If i tuen up there you know I will be taking up the offer, I just dont know why you turned a PM into a public message????


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 17, 2006)

Ok, first lets all just calm down a bit. The first part of this post is exactly what I have been asking for the whole thread, a detailed explination of why you think the technique wouldn't work. Thats good, but there is no reason to get upset here. Just a thought, you may want to, in the future, refrain from using an exlimation point! at the end! of each sentence! It tends to give your posts a tone of anger. 

Now....



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Ok there seems to be some confusion as to what I am trying to say...this is it in a nut shell....a shoot doesnt start with laying on of hands (were trying to hurt not heal...a shoot happens to close the distance so that we can take out the legs...that is the shoot and yes shoots are usually set up but for the sake of this thread lets not set it up and just look at the shoot!


I'm confused now. "Laying on of hands" were your own words. Now they are invalid? I can't seem to follow your thinking in this thread. In this one post you say a shoot doesn't start with contact then you say it is usually setup with contact. Which is it? Are you refering to a shoot as a technique that continues forward, where there is no stopping point, it can continue forward and cover an infinite amount of space? Like a crawling type move?



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Right here is a problem....a shoot is not a flying tackle...you would be hard pressed to see a flying anything come from a grappler....it is a low leg charge...it is not a slow motion...it is quick and if you are drawing in a person (drawing futher forward), he is in range to grab your other leg for a single leg takedown...you see a shoot is a double leg takedown...that turns into a single leg takedown when a opponent steps back! What I am saying is that you step your right leg back.....that brings your left leg forward!


 I dont recall the article saying anything about a flying technique. I think your trying to apply the article's technique to a different type of attack than it was intended for. There is nothing in the article that makes me think he was talking about any other form of attack than "a lunging/diving attack". In fact, the word "shoot" doesn't even appear in the article at all. We have to be honest about what the article is refrencing. A crawling type "shoot" where you can continue forward and cover an unlimited amount of space is most assuredly not what he is refering to in this article. 

Now, the point about leaving your leg exposed is a good one. I wouldn't go so far as to say it "brings your left leg forward", but it could leave it in front of your body and exposed. However the article addresses this, lets look....


			
				Article said:
			
		

> Now, the difference between this type of footwork and that which I described previously (the "knife" form footwork) is that instead of drawing the left foot back in line with the right foot as described above, the left foot is pulled right back so that it is in much the same position as it would be when I do a pivot, or the stepping in the 'Cham Kiu' form. To use the clock-face model again, the right foot is at the 5 o'clock position while the left foot is now pretty much on the 6 o'clock spot. Against a weapon, such as the pole, this is a safety measure because the "normal" side-step ('Tui Ma') action would leave the front leg open to attack from the longer weapon (against empty hands it's ideal, for trapping, etc., but against a longer weapon, it remains vulnerable, both to attack and balance problems), so by pulling the front leg further back in this exaggerated fashion, it draws it out of the line of fire.
> Now, if we apply this same strategy to the rushing/lunging attack under consideration, the outcome is the same: it keeps you out of the reach of the enemy and allows you to outflank his/her position by shifting both backwards and laterally.


 Ok, so we see that leaving the foot out in front, in the line of fire, is specifically addressed. The key is the first foots movement. If your standing in a fighting posture and your left foot is in front, when you go to move your right foot diagonally backwards, you must move it far enough to the right to be outside of the attackers line of movement, otherwise you do run a great risk of getting single legged. Once that leg is out of the line of attack, the left leg can shoot backwards and it causes your body to pivot or twist with the forward motion of the attacker, alowing you to not only avoid the forward attack, but move to a more advantageous angle or position. Its all about feel as the article mentions "under consideration". Its a yielding type of technique where your initial movement is getting the right foot outsdie range, then twisting the waist, yielding the waist to allow your body to twist with the forward momentum of the attacker. This also allows for you to make contact with the attacker and manipulate their center as they continue their momentum. 




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> So it is taken into account by the shooter!


 You misunderstand the phrasing. The article spoke of "ward off". This is not a hit or attack to try and stop or even really hurt the opponent as you implied by quoting the part about the Gracies expecting to be hit. The article is speaking of yielding with the momentum of the attacker and not trying to stop his force. This is why its so important to understand both sides of a debate like this. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yeah...pulling the left leg in an exaggerated line out of the line of fire leaves the right leg where exactly...all by its lonesome in the front...once again a shoot is a two leg attack! Thsi here wiouldnt prevent a non set up shoot from reaching its target!


 You can't read a few lines and take them out of context. See above my explination of moving the right leg first. The article says to move the right leg backwards and what again? To the right. That is saying move the right leg enough that when you drop the left leg back, your not leaving the right leg directly in the line of attack. The only way your right leg stays exposed is if you dont move it to the right enough. In my experiences I like to allready be in contact and as close quarters as possible (clinch) when I do this, but thats just me. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> The bold text shows how he is saying that the technique works....no principle....but apply this technique which is used for weapons fighting....sorry I cant see it working...maybe against overweight drunks...but against someone with some skills I doubt it!


 Ok, first lets keep the discussion honest. Your taking words to mean things they do not. Lets define the word used here, Strategy: n 1: an elaborate and systematic plan of action. How in the world can you get "technique, no principle" from the use of the word "strategy"? That doesn't even make sense on the surface. He said to apply the same strategy, the same type of movements, the same principles as described against a "lunging/diving" attack. What your trying to imply he is saying is completely false and unsubstantiated.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> To learn about philosophy...understand things more...principles (which the article states it is clearly not about)...but not to learn technique if not why would i want to even go to the Dojo I can just learn from every article I read!



Where does the articel expressly state it is not about principles?
If you cannot learn something from everything you read you are going to have a tough time in life. You should approach everything from a standpoint of looking for what it can teach you, things will be much easier that way, and you will learn more.
This is where you misunderstand the intent of writings such as this article and even message boards. It is not meant to teach you application but the teach you a new "strategy" or way o fdoing something. It is up to you to take it, train it, see if it works, and adapt it to your body and fighting. Your approaching these types of articles as static "end all be all" techniques....I dont think even the authors themselves mean for them to be taken that way. Remember this is just one way of dealing with a lunging attack and it was written to people who allready understand yielding, and turning, and the termonology used.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Yes...listen I agree that is what makes this type of writing so dangerous...it CANNOT cover all angles!



Not "this type of writing"...*all* writing. Text is static, it can never cover all angles. That must be understood before even reading an article such as this. Otherwise you get nothing from it and its a waste of time to read.
Before you stated that the shoot was static, had no variables or angles and was effective exactly the same way each time. You stated that as two completely static techniques this one would fail to the shoot. Now, your saying the article just doesn't cover all angles? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Right here:
> 
> 
> > Now, *if we apply this same strategy* to the rushing/lunging attack under consideration, the outcome is the same: it keeps you out of the reach of the enemy and allows you to outflank his/her position by shifting both backwards and laterally.


 That is obviously not saying:"this specific technique done precisely this way will defeat the shoot every time". I dont even understand how you can even think that from that line. :idunno:




			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> thsi is not about Ego...maybe we can reverse the coin and ask why do the wing chun players get deffensive and agressive when someone says ther footwork and defence wont work! This sort of thing doesnt fly!


 So you would just ignore the act of answering and simply prefer to reverse the question instead? You dont seem to understand "The Burden of Proof". To simply reverse a question and say it doesn't fly so you dont have to answer it is not honest debate. The fact is your blindly holding to your own biased version of the article even when proof of your misquoting is directly posted. That is why I mentioned ego. It seems you are willing to ignore all proof and fact to simply repeat what you want the aticle to have said, regardless of what it actually did say. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> To whom were you refering then?


 To you. But you dont seem to be really understanding the posts you read. It seems you are reading everything through a colored view, a viewed based on your own personal biases. You dont give a post chance to even understand what was actually written. Could you point out where in my statement I said you were changing text? I didn't at all. Man, you really ned to slow down and read my posts again, most of this could be avoided as miscommunications.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> As for the video...we all know what a shoot is...show us what this side step looks like!


 Again, it tends to send a negative tone when you simply reverse all questions and requests for proof on the one asking. Via this medium it is hard to really grasp tone and such, but these types of responses only give the implication that you have no proof or simply cannot answer the asked questions. I'm not saying thats how it is, just that your refusals send that message.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Static or dynamis...variables between equally skilled opponents.....the shoot wins.....I am just saying if the defender/attacker are of equal skill...strength and speed..and whatever else you want to put in as a variable (which doesnt appear in the article as you are so fond of saying)...the shoot will win more times than it fails!


 Thats just blind allegience to a technique ignoring all fact and proof. First, we cna make up whatever imaginary reality we want to make everything equal and such, but to say one technique will allways beat another regardless of situations or variables is simply naive. Its unrealistic and only makes me believe you do not have as much fighting experience or understanding as you say you do. I'm normally not one to insist on dropping a discussion, but it seems we are simply on two different places when it comes to the science of fighting. I require a much more realistic "tried and true" method than just simply holding to a belief that a super-duper technique will save me. 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> As to the rest of your post i think I laid it out in the beggining of this post...as for the unbalanvcing..it is amatter of timing at one point as someone shifts position there body is at a point of less balance...that is when you strike and set them right off...but that is boxing...maybe not in Mighty Wing Chun!



You spoke of unbalancing without contact...not you must strike them to get them unbalanced. Um...striking is contact.
I dont study Wing Chun, remember? Maybe you should re-read my posts before posting your own.
Your attempts to attack me or my "style" are not only weak and elementary but pretty rude and not really debate in my books.
If this discussion is to continue, lets all try to respect each other and address each other in a polite manner. Lets not stoop to personal attacks and rude behavior, if that happens this thread will be no more, so for the sake of what intelectual discourse is left, lets keep things polite.



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> I leave this argument now because like me...you are to buull headed to see facts...posting a video wont help because you will only say that the back peddling and stepping to the side is useless...or not how you do it...but yeah good luck with your training and learn how to sprawl...you may just need the back up technique!!


 No need to get upset and defensive (or offensive). I would suggest not making huge assumptions about how someone would act in the future, not a wise decision...ever. If you dont want to post video just say so, but dont offer some psuedo insulting reasoning for not needing to provide proof. 

We spoke of sprawling earlier in this thread, remember? Sometimes it seems you dont remember what was said from one post to the next. I'm not trying to insult you or anything ,so lets not go there, cool? If you truly through with the discussion then I appreciate your exchange here and wish you luck. If you would like to continue, I'm more than happy to on a polite and respectful level. 

 7sm


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 18, 2006)

I will work on the video...to show you what I mean! It may take a few days...but i will keep it static....I will shoot exactly as ashoot should be done....and my opponent will side step..or whatever its called in the exact fashion it is laid out in the article...it may not be perfect..but it is the best I can do!

Actually why dont you post a video outlining what the technique in the article is describing....then when I see what you mean...I can shoot that.....you will just have to take my word that I will be fair and honest with it! That seems fair to me..so that we are both talking about the same thing!

How are the mods about putting up vids?


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 19, 2006)

As long as the video conforms to our rules and policies everything is fine.

7sm


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 19, 2006)

What are these policies..I would be very interested to know!

Also I take it that you will be posting the tech that is laid out in the article!


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> What are these policies..I would be very interested to know!
> 
> Also I take it that you will be posting the tech that is laid out in the article!


 
This should answer some of your questions.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26473


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 19, 2006)

Thank You!


----------

