# Is it me or...



## Marnetmar (Feb 17, 2015)

...Do a lot of Wing Chun people not do so well under pressure? Even from other WC guys.

When watching WC sparring bouts, I notice that nobody ever actually steps in and controls the situation. One person or the other seems to be afraid of getting hit, I've never seen two people actually going at it aggressively.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 17, 2015)

Well, this is a can of worms. Despite videos of wc guys sparring with resistance being relatively scarce in comparison to say boxing sparring video, I'm sure plenty of guys will post here to assure us that their gym does it the right way and has the real wing chun.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 17, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> ...Do a lot of Wing Chun people not do so well under pressure? Even from other WC guys.
> 
> When watching WC sparring bouts, I notice that nobody ever actually steps in and controls the situation. One person or the other seems to be afraid of getting hit, I've never seen two people actually going at it aggressively.


I believe it is because they don't train under pressure enough and have not accepted that they will get hit.
Goes to show (for the most part) that some don't train realistically enough. They don't pressure test or don't train vs someone aggressively punching/kicking them. Not just at them but really contacting them. Most have never accepted they will get hit/kicked; they have not conditioned themselves physically or mentally through the process of getting hit and therefore don't do well when it happens.


----------



## Buka (Feb 17, 2015)

I don't know, are you talking about on video? If so - think of all the slam bang nights in your gym or anybody's gym. There's usually not any video cameras shooting anything, just guys/gals training.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 17, 2015)

Yeah, what Buka says. Not everyone wants to put their stuff on YouTube. It's generational, it's commercial vs private. This stuff has been going on longer than the selfie or the blog.

Not everyone wants to be seen or call attention to themselves. You've got to seek out what you want, how you want to train and who you want to train with. It might end up being wing chun, it might be something else, but just because you haven't come across it or seen it on youtube doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 17, 2015)

ShortBridge said:


> Yeah, what Buka says. Not everyone wants to put their stuff on YouTube. It's generational, it's commercial vs private. This stuff has been going on longer than the selfie or the blog.
> 
> Not everyone wants to be seen or call attention to themselves. You've got to seek out what you want, how you want to train and who you want to train with. It might end up being wing chun, it might be something else, but just because you haven't come across it or seen it on youtube doesn't mean it's not there.




A lot of TCMA people don't want to put their stuff on YouTube based on the culture that it comes from.... the nail that sticks up gets pounded down


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> ...Do a lot of Wing Chun people not do so well under pressure? Even from other WC guys.
> 
> When watching WC sparring bouts, I notice that nobody ever actually steps in and controls the situation. One person or the other seems to be afraid of getting hit, I've never seen two people actually going at it aggressively.



Can you post a video of what you mean?


----------



## kung fu fighter (Feb 17, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> ...Do a lot of Wing Chun people not do so well under pressure? Even from other WC guys.
> 
> When watching WC sparring bouts, I notice that nobody ever actually steps in and controls the situation. One person or the other seems to be afraid of getting hit, I've never seen two people actually going at it aggressively.



The simple answer is 99% of wing chun guys have a sparring mentality vs a fighting mentality and this comes out when under pressure. So they lose the wing chun intercepting timing involved when they attempt to apply their wing chun skills and end up looking like sloppy kickboxing due to there sparring mindset.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 17, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> The simple answer is 99% of wing chun guys have a sparring mentality vs a fighting mentality and this comes out when under pressure. So they lose the wing chun intercepting timing involved when they attempt to apply their wing chun skills and end up looking like sloppy kickboxing due to there sparring mindset.



This is an excellent point.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 17, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> The simple answer is 99% of wing chun guys have a sparring mentality vs a fighting mentality and this comes out when under pressure. So they lose the wing chun intercepting timing involved when they attempt to apply their wing chun skills and end up looking like sloppy kickboxing due to there sparring mindset.


Can you elaborate on sparring vs fighting mentality? In my experience sparring is fighting with a little steam taken off and an emphasis on developing and working technique. Where as in a fight you're testing what you've already developed.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 17, 2015)

How did those of you fare in a fight using Wing Chun?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 17, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> The simple answer is 99% of wing chun guys have a sparring mentality vs a fighting mentality and this comes out when under pressure. So they lose the wing chun intercepting timing involved when they attempt to apply their wing chun skills and end up looking like sloppy kickboxing due to there sparring mindset.


Hmm, not certain I know what you mean by this. There are different aspects to sparring so maybe you are referring to just one aspect. We use several different levels based upon the person's skills and abilities but all are with the mindset of intercepting, pressing forward while attacking or countering attacking.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 17, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> The simple answer is 99% of wing chun guys have a sparring mentality vs a fighting mentality....



A well crafted statement dude. Nice!


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Can you elaborate on sparring vs fighting mentality? In my experience sparring is fighting with a little steam taken off and an emphasis on developing and working technique. Where as in a fight you're testing what you've already developed.



There is sparring and there is sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2015)

Ok i hunted down a vid of full contact wing chun. Is this the sort of thing you are talking about?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> ...Do a lot of Wing Chun people not do so well under pressure? Even from other WC guys.
> 
> When watching WC sparring bouts, I notice that nobody ever actually steps in and controls the situation. One person or the other seems to be afraid of getting hit, I've never seen two people actually going at it aggressively.



Part of the issue is that very few people do well under pressure and that is why they don't stand in the pocket and trade. I have done it boxing and have got flogged for it. It is one of the riskiest ways to fight.

Wing chun is all pocket. They are trying to get into that punching range and then standing there competing for that center. You need a head like a brick to be able to pull that off against a competent fighter.
Mark hunt would be great at wing chun.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 17, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Part of the issue is that very few people do well under pressure and that is why they don't stand in the pocket and trade. I have done it boxing and have got flogged for it. It is one of the riskiest ways to fight.
> 
> Wing chun is all pocket. They are trying to get into that punching range and then standing there competing for that center. You need a head like a brick to be able to pull that off against a competent fighter.
> Mark hunt would be great at wing chun.


Yeah that's the problem I see with holding that range. You can enter and attack but if the opponent doesn't fall you've got to get out. You can't enter and hold that distance. In the pocket a guy will get hit, back up, or clinch. If you're mobile and move in and out its one thing but I don't think it's practical to enter to close the gap and plan on holding center line against anyone with experience or any other advantage on you.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 17, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Can you elaborate on sparring vs fighting mentality? In my experience sparring is fighting with a little steam taken off and an emphasis on developing and working technique. Where as in a fight you're testing what you've already developed.



In my experience, sparring is boxing with some steam taken off of it. Fighting is something different.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 17, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> The simple answer is 99% of wing chun guys have a sparring mentality vs a fighting mentality and this comes out when under pressure. So they lose the wing chun intercepting timing involved when they attempt to apply their wing chun skills and end up looking like sloppy kickboxing due to there sparring mindset.



Is this then not an argument against sparring?

Sparring develops a give and take mentality. That is not what we should be developing as WC fighters...or any fighter for that matter.
As for me I want to be very giving...not receiving.

I*s this to say "don't spar"?
No, I think instead spar as you would fight...in bursts. Don't dance around picking shots and moving in and out of range. Once an opening presents itself explode in and continuously attack until the situation is resolved then reset and do it again.

But not always at range...sometimes from up close


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 17, 2015)

yak sao said:


> Is this then not an argument against sparring?
> 
> Sparring develops a give and take mentality. That is not what we should be developing as WC fighters...or any fighter for that matter.
> As for me I want to be very giving...not receiving.
> ...


What you're describing is essentially what sparring is in boxing. The only difference is the "dancing around" jabs and feints are used to make the rushing in and unloading more unpredictable. When skill is involved you have to use a little more strategy. Morning in with guns blazing will get you knocked out. Not to mentioned a guy will just cover up and clinch.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 17, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> What you're describing is essentially what sparring is in boxing. The only difference is the "dancing around" jabs and feints are used to make the rushing in and unloading more unpredictable. When skill is involved you have to use a little more strategy. Morning in with guns blazing will get you knocked out. Not to mentioned a guy will just cover up and clinch.



No disagreement here. What I'm saying is the WC fighter shouldn't be dancing around as well or moving in and out. And yes, moving in, mindlessly attacking is nonsense....chi sau training teaches how to navigate through defenses and also how to deal with clenches.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 17, 2015)

The big issue you can find in ALL martial arts when it comes to sparring is, IMO, 2 things. One you spar only with people who train the same exact style you train therefore you are only expecting attacks and defenses in the way your art uses them. Once you come up against a different style of fighter and they approach you in an unorthodox manner (based on your training) you can get really messed up. The other issue is that many train and train well but for some reason, once they go up against another fighter absolutely everything they trained goes out the window and they turn into a western boxer and subsequently get their butt kicked because they never trained western boxing and they never used what they trained to fight with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2015)

If a WC guy doesn't mind to get into clinch, the fighting style will be different.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 17, 2015)

When I have my students spar wc we have different aspects. One is sparring for 3-5 minutes, another is sparring for only 10 seconds, and another is sparring until the first major contact. Often we spar vs multiple opponents, 2, 3, 4, & 5. 
We also spar in different scenarios like in a doorway or we'll set up a marker on the floor and I'll have a person stand in the 'doorway' telling him/her the bad guy is going to go through you and your family is behind you. You must stop the bad guy. Then I'll tell the other person that when you attack, attack as though the person standing in the doorway is the bad guy and has kidnapped your family and is going to kill them. Now spar with that intent. 
Sparring does not have to be like a boxing or mma match.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Can you elaborate on sparring vs fighting mentality?



In short sparring give your opponent an equal opportunity to fight back showing good sportsmanship, fighting does not and is more serious in nature with killer instinct.

Jook Lum Southern Praying Mantis Sifu Roger Hagood demonstrates a fighting mentality starting at 12:00 and 23:55 into this video   




here is a good example of a sparring mentality





Is this video vanderlei Silva came to spar while Vitor Belfort came to fight


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> The big issue you can find in ALL martial arts when it comes to sparring is, IMO, 2 things. One you spar only with people who train the same exact style you train therefore you are only expecting attacks and defenses in the way your art uses them. Once you come up against a different style of fighter and they approach you in an unorthodox manner (based on your training) you can get really messed up. The other issue is that many train and train well but for some reason, once they go up against another fighter absolutely everything they trained goes out the window and they turn into a western boxer and subsequently get their butt kicked because they never trained western boxing and they never used what they trained to fight with.



Excellent points Xue, and ones that I have made in the past as well.  In fact, I have seen your second point  in action so often that I have come to wonder if  the pseudo-western boxer/kickboxer mechanic that people resort to under pressure so often in sparring videos....is maybe a more natural and instinctive way to move.   I've wondered often why the Wing Chun structure that people put so much sweat and so many hours into developing in the gym...why it seems to so readily disappear under pressure.   People have answered this question with comments like..."Wing Chun doesn't have to look like Wing Chun in application" or "under pressure you just do what works."  But I think this is a major cop out.  If you put so much effort into developing a Wing Chun biomechanic as taught in the forms and drills...don't you expect it to be there for you when you have to perform under pressure in sparring or a real fight?   Shouldn't it be second nature so that you don't even have to think about it?   You could say the people that don't have that under pressure just didn't train properly or long enough or hard enough.   But I've seen this happen to seasoned people with good training and lots of time in the system.  So...I've begun to wonder if a boxing/kickboxing way of moving isn't more natural and instinctive.........


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 18, 2015)

yak sao said:


> Sparring develops a give and take mentality. That is not what we should be developing as WC fighters.
> ...Don't dance around picking shots and moving in and out of range.



Well said Yak!!!


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> Excellent points Xue, and ones that I have made in the past as well.  In fact, I have seen your second point  in action so often that I have come to wonder if  the pseudo-western boxer/kickboxer mechanic that people resort to under pressure so often in sparring videos....is maybe a more natural and instinctive way to move.   I've wondered often why the Wing Chun structure that people put so much sweat and so many hours into developing in the gym...why it seems to so readily disappear under pressure.   People have answered this question with comments like..."Wing Chun doesn't have to look like Wing Chun in application" or "under pressure you just do what works."  But I think this is a major cop out.  If you put so much effort into developing a Wing Chun biomechanic as taught in the forms and drills...don't you expect it to be there for you when you have to perform under pressure in sparring or a real fight?   Shouldn't it be second nature so that you don't even have to think about it?   You could say the people that don't have that under pressure just didn't train properly or long enough or hard enough.   But I've seen this happen to seasoned people with good training and lots of time in the system.  So...I've begun to wonder if a boxing/kickboxing way of moving isn't more natural and instinctive.........



Lots of boxing and kick boxing you have to be good at to pull off. I would not have said that is a natural way to fight either.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

my coach is a pressure fighter. But there are reasons he can get away with what he does. 

I am lost a bit with this sparring mentality vs fight mentality. You have to play to your strengths. Sometimes that means going backwards.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

kung fu fighter said:


> In short sparring give your opponent an equal opportunity to fight back showing good sportsmanship, fighting does not and is more serious in nature with killer instinct.
> 
> Jook Lum Southern Praying Mantis Sifu Roger Hagood demonstrates a fighting mentality starting at 12:00 and 23:55 into this video
> 
> ...


I'd disagree that in sparring you give the opponent an equal opportunity to fight back. You find an opening via jabs, slip, ect move in and unload, in reality it would probably end there with an untrained guy. The give and take you see in a professional match is due to the experience and conditioning of the athletes. I liked the Kung fu school challenge video, great find! I wasn't impressed by the Asian Sifu, but I was glad to see his student did better. If the sifu was more mobile he may have done better. Standing your ground only works when you're bigger or better than your opponent, if the playing field is more level you have to range in and out.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Sometimes that means going backwards.



Maybe I missed it, but did someone say WC doesn't move backwards?


----------



## yak sao (Feb 18, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Maybe I missed it, but did someone say WC doesn't move backwards?



In our lineage, we do move back, but only as a yield to their force. In other words, moving back increases the distance between you and your opponent, yielding does not.
I think covering the distance is the hardest part of the fight, both physically and mentally. Why go back to the outside once you've accomplished the hardest part?


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...  So...I've begun to wonder if a boxing/kickboxing way of moving isn't more natural and instinctive.........



I think that boxing and kickboxing are more natural and instinctive ways to move. I also think that the frame of reference for those styles is much broader.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2015)

ShortBridge said:


> I think that boxing and kickboxing are more natural and instinctive ways to move. I also think that the frame of reference for those styles is much broader.



I am not convinced it is natural or instinctive, I am convinced that it is what we grow up seeing in the west and we revert to the familiar. Now if everyone on the planet with fighting reverted to a boxing way of fighting then I would think it instinctive but they don't, so I look at it as learned. And it can be learned simply by what you see year after year on TV and in movies or in boxing matches. How many know Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, and Evander Holyfield as compared to Joe Lewis, Benny the Jet, Billy Blanks (as a fighter), Leung Sheung, or William Cheung outside of the hallowed pages of MT?


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> What you're describing is essentially what sparring is in boxing. The only difference is the "dancing around" jabs and feints are used to make the rushing in and unloading more unpredictable. When skill is involved you have to use a little more strategy. Morning in with guns blazing will get you knocked out. Not to mentioned a guy will just cover up and clinch.


---------------------------------------------------------------
With good skilled chi sao experience strategy and tactics is built into closing the gap and going in. Different from boxing sparring.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 18, 2015)

Playing drums is much more intuitive than playing piano or trumpet. Most kids want to play drums because they look at it and it makes sense to them. I love good drummers, so I have no issue with that, but depending on what you want to accomplish musically, drums may not do it for you. 

Which "gets you on stage" more quickly? Probably drums. Which is more "effective" after 6 or 8 months of work? Drums. Which might you develop some competency with self-taught via recordings and videos? Most likely drums.

But some people need to play piano or guitar or tenor saxophone to accomplish their goals. Some people need to compose, which is hard to do on drums. And a dirty secret is that if you've ever known a really good jazz drummer, you realize that their natural intuition was replaced a long time ago with years of really uncomfortable, really boring and repetitive practice and learning. What is most natural only gets you so far, no matter what you do.

I'm glad there are drummers. I'm glad there are composers. On music forums, drummers never show up and tell piano players that practicing scales and learning harmony is just for show and they can prove to them that drums will drown them out everytime. Or that someone playing drums for 1 year is better than someone playing classical guitar for one year, so why do they bother?

And no one ever says, "You've been practicing piano for 5 years, but Neil Peart from Rush would blow you away" because they understand that comparing professionals to people who are trying to learn something isn't logical. 

That is a unique part of martial arts culture that I find regrettable.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

ShortBridge said:


> Playing drums is much more intuitive than playing piano or trumpet. Most kids want to play drums because they look at it and it makes sense to them. I love good drummers, so I have no issue with that, but depending on what you want to accomplish musically, drums may not do it for you.
> 
> Which "gets you on stage" more quickly? Probably drums. Which is more "effective" after 6 or 8 months of work? Drums. Which might you develop some competency with self-taught via recordings and videos? Most likely drums.
> 
> ...


Yes but music doesn't claim to protect or save your life like martial arts do. It's a fair comparison and I see where you're trying to go. But at the end of the day when you're talking about fighting ability and self defense application the example of music falls apart. Now if you're only talking recreation and exercise it doesn't matter, do whatever you want and enjoy it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Yes but music doesn't claim to protect or save your life like martial arts do. It's a fair comparison and I see where you're trying to go. But at the end of the day when you're talking about fighting ability and self defense application the example of music falls apart. Now if you're only talking recreation and exercise it doesn't matter, do whatever you want and enjoy it.



Don't agree, it all takes kung fu (hard work) and it is all a learned skill


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't agree, it all takes kung fu (hard work) and it is all a learned skill


Yes but you don't get punched in the face playing the drums or piano (hopefully )They are apples and oranges.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Yes but music doesn't claim to protect or save your life like martial arts do. It's a fair comparison and I see where you're trying to go. But at the end of the day when you're talking about fighting ability and self defense application the example of music falls apart. Now if you're only talking recreation and exercise it doesn't matter, do whatever you want and enjoy it.


I actually made a post in another thread which sort of addresses this point: Is it really the person not the style?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Yes but you don't get punched in the face playing the drums or piano (hopefully )They are apples and oranges.



We do not agree.

Using the same logic you cannot compare learning the drums to learning the guitar because you don't h it stuff playing the guitar and  you cannot compare playing guitar to learning the flute because there is no breath control required in playing the guitar. you also cannot compare Savate to Judo because there are no kicks in Judo and you cannot compare Judo to boxing because of the lack of emphasis on striking in Judo..... we do not agree and likely will not and that's ok.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I actually made a post in another thread which sort of addresses this point: Is it really the person not the style?


I agree with your other post. Train in something you like. If you just admit that you're training a system because you find it enjoyable, no one can take that from you. It's when people argue against another style without evidence to back up claims that I'll interject. It's like in this thread, if someone trains chun because they like, by all means enjoy. But if they train chun because its "the best striking system there is" then I ask for evidence. 

For example, I train boxing because I like it and I think it's an effective striking  system. No one can tell me I don't like boxing, and my evidence for it's effectiveness can be seen in countless videos. I'm still not gonna say it's the best, but its a good one and there's plenty of proof. Chun may vary we'll be good also, I'd just say it lacks the proof boxing does. But chun also isn't as popular so naturally there will be less proof. 


Xue Sheng said:


> We do not agree.
> 
> Using the same logic you cannot compare learning the drums to learning the guitar because you don't h it stuff playing the guitar and  you cannot compare playing guitar to learning the flute because there is no breath control required in playing the guitar. you also cannot compare Savate to Judo because there are no kicks in Judo and you cannot compare Judo to boxing because of the lack of emphasis on striking in Judo..... we do not agree and likely will not and that's ok.



No we don't agree, martial arts Re comparable because they are all martial Arts and lines can be drawn and comparisons can be made between systems. Even with music some comparisons can be made, but eventually you have to draw a line where the two differ. I'm sure we could compare martial arts to cars, academic subjects, dog breeding, whatever, but at the end of the day martial arts is about hitting and breaking people or you're just dancing and acting, which is fine if that's what you like to do.


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> ...
> For example, I train boxing because I like it and I think it's an effective striking  system. No one can tell me I don't like boxing, and my evidence for it's effectiveness can be seen in countless videos. I'm still not gonna say it's the best, but its a good one and there's plenty of proof. Chun may vary we'll be good also, I'd just say it lacks the proof boxing does. But chun also isn't as popular so naturally there will be less proof.
> ...



I don't want to disagree with someone who is agreeing with me. Horrible debate tactic on my part, but let's banter a little bit about this. 

First of all, I love boxing. I did it passionately as a teenager and in my early 20s and transitioned to Muay Thai for another several years. I really do get it and would never speak out against it.

But, I became concerned about boxing as a complete set of self defense skills and tactics for me. For lots of reasons will sound like criticisms, but are not. I loved it, I love it now. Monster respect for it, but I am absolutely sure that I am better off now from a self defense perspective than I was then...personally.

When you say you have "plenty of proof", are you referring to boxing matches? No one would claim that boxing isn't effective for boxing. But, the jump to "reality" is what I think we ALL get wrong. Nearly everyone I boxed with back then broke their hand in a bar fight at one point or another. At what point does that start to become a bad strategy?

Again, nothing but respect. I appreciate what you do and what you wrote in support. But I don't just do what I do because I like it. I also don't claim that chi sao is proof of anything.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Maybe I missed it, but did someone say WC doesn't move backwards?



never seen a chunner fight moving backwards. And ironically good back foot fighting counters good aggressive fighting.

So mastering that would be like having a superpower.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

ShortBridge said:


> I don't want to disagree with someone who is agreeing with me. Horrible debate tactic on my part, but let's banter a little bit about this.
> 
> First of all, I love boxing. I did it passionately as a teenager and in my early 20s and transitioned to Muay Thai for another several years. I really do get it and would never speak out against it.
> 
> ...



It shouldn't be a boxing vs chun thing. More there are basic elements of striking that boxers do well and chun can take advantage of. Because you are effectively fighting in that same range. 

So putting on flurries counter punching, even hand trapping chun and boxing share. Mma are using vertical fists more as well. But chun for some insane reason don't want to create good angles with footwork even though they are conceptually founded on creating good angles.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

yak sao said:


> In our lineage, we do move back, but only as a yield to their force. In other words, moving back increases the distance between you and your opponent, yielding does not.
> I think covering the distance is the hardest part of the fight, both physically and mentally. Why go back to the outside once you've accomplished the hardest part?



because unless you are striking accurately and with power you are setting up to be knocked out or taken down.

So you have worked in and are putting shots on and they cover. You cant keep pressing that attack. Because you are not achieving anything. With your punches negated what are you doing?

Standing still in their range.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because unless you are striking accurately and with power you are setting up to be knocked out or taken down.
> 
> So you have worked in and are putting shots on and they cover. You cant keep pressing that attack. Because you are not achieving anything. With your punches negated what are you doing?
> 
> Standing still in their range.



I would agree if all WC had in their arsenal were punches. But there are also knees, elbows, kicks, fak sau, grabbing, sweeping, stomping...........


----------



## yak sao (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ..... But chun for some insane reason don't want to create good angles with footwork even though they are conceptually founded on creating good angles.



You aren't speaking for all WC because my sifu was constantly teaching how to use our footwork to change the angle of our attack.
My si-gung uses the expression: "_ WT's footwork is the key that unlocks WT's hands_"


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

yak sao said:


> I would agree if all WC had in their arsenal were punches. But there are also knees, elbows, kicks, fak sau, grabbing, sweeping, stomping...........



makes no fundamental difference. The other guy has grabbing sweeping etc. As well.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 18, 2015)

yak sao said:


> You aren't speaking for all WC because my sifu was constantly teaching how to use our footwork to change the angle of our attack.
> My si-gung uses the expression: "_ WT's footwork is the key that unlocks WT's hands_"



It's all about the feet!!!!


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

ShortBridge said:


> I don't want to disagree with someone who is agreeing with me. Horrible debate tactic on my part, but let's banter a little bit about this.
> 
> First of all, I love boxing. I did it passionately as a teenager and in my early 20s and transitioned to Muay Thai for another several years. I really do get it and would never speak out against it.
> 
> ...


I agree, boxing is not a complete self defense system. It's a good base for someone who is into martial arts as a lifelong pursuit. I also currently train and teach FMA, also have trained Tang Soo Do, Hapkido, JJJ, and BJJ. In martial arts from a fighting ability and self defense standpoint I think it's important to be well rounded, I also think it's good to have some specialties that you can perform exceptionally well, and if you're gonna train your whole life (or adult life in my case) you should be able to do somethings really well eventually. My thoughts are if I'm gonna claim to know how to punch, I'll at least be able to hold my own with a boxer. If I were to claim to be a good kicker, I'd want to be able to hold my own with a kicking specialist like an athletic TKDer or Muay Thai guy. Same for grappling and judo or BJJ.  However, some guys get in one system for many years or do a buffet of systems and get old and seem to never have learned to do anything really well except for forms, and that's fine if you're not claiming to be a self defense expert or a fighter. 

As for proof of boxing being effective, there are plenty of videos of guys who look remarkably like boxers applying it in street fights. Some of them may just be guys copying what they see in sport and tv, and some clearly have some training. As for breaking hands? It can happen, and if I break my hand while putting down a couple of guys doing it, it's a fair trade off. I'd rather not break my hand but I'd also rather have the skill to handle an aggressive guy trying to take my head off too. Plenty of guys who don't box break their hands too. Karate and many other arts used a closed fist as well it's a valid approach. 

Is boxing all you need for self defense? No, I don't think many boxers would claim that, but it's a good approach because we've seen it work. IF you can punch really well you can overcome a lot but eventually you may need some grappling experience. A foundation in a solid art that trains regularly with resistance coupled with some combatives, RBSD, or even traditional training makes a good approach to self defense. I don't look at it as a sport vs street vs traditional or whatever martial art argument. I think all make the best combination and if you're a life long martial artist you've got the time to try them all.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

yak sao said:


> You aren't speaking for all WC because my sifu was constantly teaching how to use our footwork to change the angle of our attack.
> My si-gung uses the expression: "_ WT's footwork is the key that unlocks WT's hands_"



It is what you are supposed to do. But if you are fighting for the center it is precisely what you are not doing.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> makes no fundamental difference. The other guy has grabbing sweeping etc. As well.



You said we weren't accomplishing anything because they cover up. And I disagree because we aren't just pounding their arms with our fists.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> But chun for some insane reason don't want to create good angles with footwork even though they are conceptually founded on creating good angles.



Drop Bear, a question if I may. Are you a WC / WT / VT practitioner? If so, are you saying you haven't yet seen or learned angle footwork(?)   Just curious. Thx.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It is what you are supposed to do. But if you are fighting for the center it is precisely what you are not doing.




Common misconception. WT/WC is not about standing in front of your opponent and fighting nose to nose.
We strike from _our center_ and strike into the center of our opponent's mass.. this can be done whether in front, to the side, from behind from over top....


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

Here you go! And look multiple opponents too?!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> No we don't agree, martial arts Re comparable because they are all martial Arts and lines can be drawn and comparisons can be made between systems. Even with music some comparisons can be made, but eventually you have to draw a line where the two differ. I'm sure we could compare martial arts to cars, academic subjects, dog breeding, whatever, but at the end of the day martial arts is about hitting and breaking people or you're just dancing and acting, which is fine if that's what you like to do.



So then hitting and breaking people are the criteria (you added one by the way), ok we can compare to snowball fights, rugby and football..... dancing and acting have little to do with it or the comparison being made to "Learning" a musical instrument or any skill for that matter....


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Drop Bear, a question if I may. Are you a WC / WT / VT practitioner? If so, are you saying you haven't yet seen or learned angle footwork(?)   Just curious. Thx.



I have done a month or so and the footwork and concepts are there. In fact very similar to boxing. And then sparring puts you guys on train tracks.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I have done *a month or so* and the footwork and concepts are there.



Ok, thanks for clarifying. 



drop bear said:


> And then sparring puts *you guys* on train tracks.



So your blanket-assessment includes you also correct(?) Or just the rest of us, and not you?.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Ok, thanks for clarifying.
> So your blanket-assessment includes you also correct(?) Or just the rest of us, and not you?.



No it doesn't include me. To a certain degree anyway. Angling off is kind of an art form.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> But chun for some insane reason don't want to create good angles with footwork even though they are conceptually founded on creating good angles.


You are correct in that there are some who just move straight forward. Many of us angle with proper footwork.


drop bear said:


> It is what you are supposed to do. But if you are fighting for the center it is precisely what you are not doing.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know. 
We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core. If you are fighting using some of the drills designed to teach the lines, to control the line with forward pressure and to strike into the opponent as in Sil Lum Tao as a beginner then you are correct. And you will get destroyed in a fight. Those drills are not for fighting but to learn to feel, control, pressure, maintain. 


drop bear said:


> I have done a month or so and the footwork and concepts are there. In fact very similar to boxing. And then sparring puts you guys on train tracks.


A month or so.
And you know & understand the Wing Chun system.
Sorry but your remarks state you don't have but a cursory knowledge and very weak grasp or understanding of which you opine.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> You are correct in that there are some who just move straight forward. Many of us angle with proper footwork.
> 
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know.
> We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core. If you are fighting using some of the drills designed to teach the lines, to control the line with forward pressure and to strike into the opponent as in Sil Lum Tao as a beginner then you are correct. And you will get destroyed in a fight. Those drills are not for fighting but to learn to feel, control, pressure, maintain.
> ...


This response is typical in a WC discussion. 1)everyone we've seen is doing it wrong but your school does it right. 2) lots of concepts and theory on center but little demonstration on a resisting partner 3) the criticism that if you haven't trained extensively in WC you are unable to comment on it.

These are just my observations over the years. Some may have reasonable explanations and some may be oversimications but they are common themes. You can understand a system all day but if you can't apply it your knowledge is useless unless you can use it to teach someone who can apply it. Somewhere along the line application is a necessity.


----------



## geezer (Feb 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> ...Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then *they are not doing the wing chun I know.*
> ...We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core..


 
Unfortunately, Drop Bear may be correct, based on _his_ experience in WC, at least _up to this point_. In my training, really *applying* angling was not taught for a long time. Oh sure we did side-stepping and angling in some drills and so on. But I don't think any of that would have made sense to me with only a month or two in.

One thing about traditional martial arts training is that it's a long slow process. Maybe too slow. Ironically, it was another art, Escrima, that really helped me make my WC work for me. Funny that. The Escrima I trained had a lot of boxing influence. Seeing the same angling principles used in another way  in another art made me more aware of what I should have been doing all along in WC.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> This response is typical in a WC discussion. 1)everyone we've seen is doing it wrong but your school does it right. 2) lots of concepts and theory on center but little demonstration on a resisting partner 3) the criticism that if you haven't trained extensively in WC you are unable to comment on it.
> 
> These are just my observations over the years. Some may have reasonable explanations and some may be oversimications but they are common themes. You can understand a system all day but if you can't apply it your knowledge is useless unless you can use it to teach someone who can apply it. Somewhere along the line application is a necessity.



WC is a very basic looking and simplistic looking art on the surface. And because of this, people erroneously think they understand it and can use it having had little or no exposure to it.
What you end up with is a very shallow interpretation and mimicking of movements from the forms and their "applications".

You can't fully understand WC until you are able to see it from a big picture perspective, that is, seeing it from the top down...not from the bottom up....But then, isn't this true of every discipline, MA or otherwise?


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 19, 2015)

yak sao said:


> WC is a very basic looking and simplistic looking art on the surface. And because of this, people erroneously think they understand it and can use it having had little or no exposure to it.
> What you end up with is a very shallow interpretation and mimicking of movements from the forms and their "applications".
> 
> You can't fully understand WC until you are able to see it from a big picture perspective, that is, seeing it from the top down...not from the bottom up.


That may be, I just haven't seen a lot of evidence that WC guys can practice what they preach, but I have seen some good video out there. It just seems there's a lot more videos of guys talking theory and concepts than anything else. I've seen the same thing in other arts too including the FMA I train. Some guys have a need to over intellectualize what we do and over explain when they should be training.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> . Some guys have a need to over intellectualize what we do and over explain when they should be training.



Amen brother! WC, like so many others, is a very theory driven art. And because of this, we tend to attract a bunch of.......NERDS!. There I said it.
Its OK to intellectualize, talk theory, discuss principles, all of that is fine. But first, shut up and train. Put in some good old fashioned hard work, or dare I say it: _Kung Fu, _then, while we're catching our breath and licking our wounds we can talk about it.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> This response is typical in a WC discussion. 1)everyone we've seen is doing it wrong but your school does it right. 2) lots of concepts and theory on center but little demonstration on a resisting partner 3) the criticism that if you haven't trained extensively in WC you are unable to comment on it.
> 
> These are just my observations over the years. Some may have reasonable explanations and some may be oversimications but they are common themes. You can understand a system all day but if you can't apply it your knowledge is useless unless you can use it to teach someone who can apply it. Somewhere along the line application is a necessity.



That it is WC we are discussing is irrelevant it is applicable to any training method. That his understanding is incorrect is relevant and that has nothing to do with my school is right. That you have not seen good wc doesn't mean wc is isn't good and of course anyone can comment on it. However, that does not mean one's opinion is correct. And opinion no matter what drives it is but an opinion and can still be incorrect. 
I have written in many past posts that there are many who never move past drilling and into function. Forms, drills, application. You do not apply with drills. People see drills, do drills, and stay stuck in the drill. If one only trains in the SLT aspect of wc training then yes you will fight straight on and probably on go straight forward. Great but you are still a beginner in WC and it doesn't matter how long one has been training. If you have not gone past SLT training then you are still a beginner. When one moves into learning the Chum Kiu lesson and can function with footwork, angles, body unity, then one starts to gain an understanding of applying the movements and positions. But you are still not fighting with it as yet. If all you have seen is someone using the drills from SLT and some of the drills out of CK fighting then I agree they will not be very good. But that doesn't mean wc is poor.

I have had 3 instructors in WC. The first got me started and in the beginning I thought he was good. In time I came to realize he was but a good beginner but he was very good at what he had. I sought out another who was a much better instructor and I quickly learned I had much more to train and practice. In time again I came to realize he was an outstanding driller but under pressure many of the principles we spouted were not being utilized. (often speed and strength was the winner not proper application of the drills)
My 3rd instructor showed me how low level my wc knowledge and understanding was. It wasn't the WC system's fault it was the lack of knowledge and understand my first 2 instructor had. One can not pass on what one does not have. Today my WC is good. Can it still be better? Absolutely. I have students who are better than I am. That probably makes me a better instructor than applier. But then at my age my advanced students should be quicker, faster, stronger, and better at applying.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> That it is WC we are discussing is irrelevant it is applicable to any training method. That his understanding is incorrect is relevant and that has nothing to do with my school is right. That you have not seen good wc doesn't mean wc is isn't good and of course anyone can comment on it. However, that does not mean one's opinion is correct. And opinion no matter what drives it is but an opinion and can still be incorrect.
> I have written in many past posts that there are many who never move past drilling and into function. Forms, drills, application. You do not apply with drills. People see drills, do drills, and stay stuck in the drill. If one only trains in the SLT aspect of wc training then yes you will fight straight on and probably on go straight forward. Great but you are still a beginner in WC and it doesn't matter how long one has been training. If you have not gone past SLT training then you are still a beginner. When one moves into learning the Chum Kiu lesson and can function with footwork, angles, body unity, then one starts to gain an understanding of applying the movements and positions. But you are still not fighting with it as yet. If all you have seen is someone using the drills from SLT and some of the drills out of CK fighting then I agree they will not be very good. But that doesn't mean wc is poor.
> 
> I have had 3 instructors in WC. The first got me started and in the beginning I thought he was good. In time I came to realize he was but a good beginner but he was very good at what he had. I sought out another who was a much better instructor and I quickly learned I had much more to train and practice. In time again I came to realize he was an outstanding driller but under pressure many of the principles we spouted were not being utilized. (often speed and strength was the winner not proper application of the drills)
> My 3rd instructor showed me how low level my wc knowledge and understanding was. It wasn't the WC system's fault it was the lack of knowledge and understand my first 2 instructor had. One can not pass on what one does not have. Today my WC is good. Can it still be better? Absolutely. I have students who are better than I am. That probably makes me a better instructor than applier. But then at my age my advanced students should be quicker, faster, stronger, and better at applying.


Makes sense to me. Like I said earlier their are many within my FMA system that think they are advanced but actually have very limited knowledge and understanding of the art. Some are very good at what they have and some have the strength and athleticism to use it well, but there are higher levels. I can see where you're coming from, hopefully things will someday change about how things are presented to those outside of the system.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Makes sense to me.


All good.



Mephisto said:


> Like I said earlier their are many within my FMA system that think they are advanced but actually have very limited knowledge and understanding of the art. Some are very good at what they have and some have the strength and athleticism to use it well, but there are higher levels. I can see where you're coming from, hopefully things will someday change about how things are presented to those outside of the system.


The thing is, this can be said of every system/style.

Had a 20 something in last week for checking us out. During the session it was obvious he had some training. Either he had just started or it was low level. (not knocking him just my observation) 
"So what have you been training and for how long?"
His answer, "about 4 years of kickboxing". 
Me: (in my thoughts, No Way) So I ask, "any fights?"
Him- "5"
My thoughts, 'WOW'  So I had to ask, "what is your record?"
"1 & 4"
I didn't ask but my thought was, "how did you win 1?"
Here is a young man who has been training in a kickboxing format for about 4 years. Form was weak, footwork was terrible, punches were sloppy, jaw was open but he could throw punches and kick with a semblance of technique. His coach though him good enough to have him enter 5 matches. Does this make kickboxing a poor form of fighting? No, but his poor because of either he exaggerated his training (didn't seem to on his record) or it is the lack of good instruction, training, practice, and coaching.

I don't believe that will ever change. There will always be poor instructors/coaches.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2015)

geezer said:


> Unfortunately, Drop Bear may be correct, based on _his_ experience in WC, at least _up to this point_. In my training, really *applying* angling was not taught for a long time. Oh sure we did side-stepping and angling in some drills and so on. But I don't think any of that would have made sense to me with only a month or two in.
> 
> One thing about traditional martial arts training is that it's a long slow process. Maybe too slow. Ironically, it was another art, Escrima, that really helped me make my WC work for me. Funny that. The Escrima I trained had a lot of boxing influence. Seeing the same angling principles used in another way  in another art made me more aware of what I should have been doing all along in WC.


I apologize for getting on my training model schtick, but don't you think this points to a deficiency in the WAY your WC was being taught?  Once again, it's not the techniques or the style, it's how it's taught that really, really matters.

If there are WC'ers who do not do well under pressure, it is VERY likely to be the manner in which they train their techniques.  Or said another way, if it takes an exceptional person years to develop even a modest proficiency with the techniques, you're doing something wrong.  While it may be that the techniques are inherently flawed, it's much more likely you are just being taught poorly. 

This isn't just WC.  It's anything.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> You are correct in that there are some who just move straight forward. Many of us angle with proper footwork.
> 
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know.
> We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core. If you are fighting using some of the drills designed to teach the lines, to control the line with forward pressure and to strike into the opponent as in Sil Lum Tao as a beginner then you are correct. And you will get destroyed in a fight. Those drills are not for fighting but to learn to feel, control, pressure, maintain.
> ...



Then i guess it is a mystery then why chun collapses under pressure. Probably just bad luck or something.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Then i guess it is a mystery then why chun collapses under pressure. Probably just bad luck or something.


No it just show the flaws in how that person trained and practiced.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2015)

Danny T said:


> No it just show the flaws in how that person trained and practiced.



well yeah pretty much. And if you find chun that does well. They move in and out and take advantage of angles.

And why i left chun because i was punching holes in the instructor.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And why i left chun because i was punching holes in the instructor.



So now, after a month or so of WC...you come on to a WC forum and make broad statements about all of "us"; that do not include yourself...on how all of "us" don't / can't angle, and simply stand there in the "center" (because you say that is what we are supposed to do) and get pummeled. And this is because you have the ability to punch holes in your former WC instructor?


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 19, 2015)

Sample size of 1.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 19, 2015)

Steve said:


> I apologize for getting on my training model schtick, but don't you think this points to a deficiency in the WAY your WC was being taught?  Once again, it's not the techniques or the style, it's how it's taught that really, really matters.
> 
> If there are WC'ers who do not do well under pressure, it is VERY likely to be the manner in which they train their techniques.  Or said another way, if it takes an exceptional person years to develop even a modest proficiency with the techniques, you're doing something wrong.  While it may be that the techniques are inherently flawed, it's much more likely you are just being taught poorly.
> 
> This isn't just WC.  It's anything.


I think you're 100% correct. Often the problems with a system lie in the method the system is trained and it's not necessarily the system that is flawed. However, that directs me back to my "on average some systems are better" soapbox, due to the notion that most schools within a system train in the same manner. The reason boxing and BJJ are effective is the sparring, rolling, and regular training with a resisting opponent, any system that trained this way has the potential to be good. However, if the majority of schools within a system don't train this way than the common training method for that system is not effective. So it may not be that the style is bad but the training method is and thus on average the martial arts system is bad by proxy. Again we're talking bad or ineffective with respect to fighting and self defense ability. I realize some people don't train for that and thus don't care.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> So now, after a month or so of WC...you come on to a WC forum and make broad statements about all of "us"; that do not include yourself...on how all of "us" don't / can't angle, and simply stand there in the "center" (because you say that is what we are supposed to do) and get pummeled. And this is because you have the ability to punch holes in your former WC instructor?



Don't get sooky.  There are going to be reasons chun works reasons it doesn't and people will have individual ideas on what that is from their personal experience.

feel free to show good chun angling.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I think you're 100% correct. Often the problems with a system lie in the method the system is trained and it's not necessarily the system that is flawed. However, that directs me back to my "on average some systems are better" soapbox, due to the notion that most schools within a system train in the same manner. The reason boxing and BJJ are effective is the sparring, rolling, and regular training with a resisting opponent, any system that trained this way has the potential to be good. However, if the majority of schools within a system don't train this way than the common training method for that system is not effective. So it may not be that the style is bad but the training method is and thus on average the martial arts system is bad by proxy. Again we're talking bad or ineffective with respect to fighting and self defense ability. I realize some people don't train for that and thus don't care.



There is also a paper scissors rock factor. If you approach a fight with one method it will work well against some people but not so well against others. This is the same with body types and physical attributes.

As a quick example. If i have more reach than you but am trying to constantly in fight. I am shooting myself in the foot.


----------



## KPM (Feb 20, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I agree, boxing is not a complete self defense system. It's a good base for someone who is into martial arts as a lifelong pursuit. I also currently train and teach FMA, .



That's where Panantukan comes in my friend!!!! ;-)


----------



## Kwan Sau (Feb 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Don't get sooky.


 

Sooky? haha... had to look that one up. Apparently it is an Aussie term. Thanks for educating me on that. For the record, has nothing to do with 'sooky'...just pointing out your choice of words on this is poor. 




drop bear said:


> There are going to be reasons chun works reasons it doesn't and people will have individual ideas on what that is from their personal experience.



I agree with you on this. But I wouldn't come on here and claim to speak for all WC as you have done.




drop bear said:


> feel free to show good chun angling.



I can't...it seems you've condemned my feet to train tracks in an earlier post; and I can't reach my camera. 
Besides, I'm a WC guy...and you've said WC doesn't angle...and that none of us can do it; so that's that. 

Enjoy your journey friend. Peace.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> That's where Panantukan comes in my friend!!!! ;-)



Panantukan is the perfect example of what Steve was talking about. Largely panantukan seems to be boxing with all of the effective attribute building aspects of training removed. Just about every panantukan video I've seen is compliant demos. It all looks choreographed, or an "attacker" will feed a half hearted punch and the "defender" will unload a flurry of "devastating" strikes on a statue of a partner who doesn't react or counter. I like panantukan in theory but have yet to see anyone show it in action. My system doesn't have anything with the "panantukan" label so I can only go based on what I see in video and what groups I've visited are doing. I'm sure there's some hard sparring panantukan somewhere but I'm not seeing it. It seems like the guys making demo videos don't have the confidence to show their panantukan skills in action.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 20, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Sooky? haha... had to look that one up. Apparently it is an Aussie term. Thanks for educating me on that. For the record, has nothing to do with 'sooky'...just pointing out your choice of words on this is poor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really?
look you are welcome at any time to show wing chun in its strengths. I am not here to get all emotional with you.

All I am calling out here are basic striking weaknesses as i see them. It doesn't matter what system you do it will get you caught.


----------



## geezer (Feb 20, 2015)

Steve said:


> I apologize for getting on my training model schtick, but don't you think this points to a deficiency in the WAY your WC was being taught?
> 
> ...If there are WC'ers who do not do well under pressure, it is VERY likely to be the manner in which they train their techniques.
> 
> This isn't just WC.  It's anything.


 
Yep.


----------



## KPM (Feb 20, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Panantukan is the perfect example of what Steve was talking about. Largely panantukan seems to be boxing with all of the effective attribute building aspects of training removed. Just about every panantukan video I've seen is compliant demos. It all looks choreographed, or an "attacker" will feed a half hearted punch and the "defender" will unload a flurry of "devastating" strikes on a statue of a partner who doesn't react or counter. I like panantukan in theory but have yet to see anyone show it in action. My system doesn't have anything with the "panantukan" label so I can only go based on what I see in video and what groups I've visited are doing. I'm sure there's some hard sparring panantukan somewhere but I'm not seeing it. It seems like the guys making demo videos don't have the confidence to show their panantukan skills in action.



I can't argue with that assessment.  I too have wondered why we don't see any sparring videos from the larger Panantukan camps.  Although, Panantukan sparring essentially looks like boxing with the occasional Gunting thrown in when the opportunity presents, which really isn't very often.   On Guro Ron Balicki's video series after he shows a specific Panantukan technique he tries to include a clip of him applying it in a sparring situation. Those clips have never made it to youtube though.   But still....Panantukan is a combative version of boxing....it represents boxing made more "martial" by adding in things from FMA.    I'm not sure what you mean by "all of the effective attribute building aspects of training removed"???   Panantukan guys work the heavy bag, focus mitts, etc. just like boxers.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2015)

KPM said:


> I can't argue with that assessment.  I too have wondered why we don't see any sparring videos from the larger Panantukan camps.  Although, Panantukan sparring essentially looks like boxing with the occasional Gunting thrown in when the opportunity presents, which really isn't very often.   On Guro Ron Balicki's video series after he shows a specific Panantukan technique he tries to include a clip of him applying it in a sparring situation. Those clips have never made it to youtube though.   But still....Panantukan is a combative version of boxing....it represents boxing made more "martial" by adding in things from FMA.    I'm not sure what you mean by "all of the effective attribute building aspects of training removed"???   Panantukan guys work the heavy bag, focus mitts, etc. just like boxers.


I just haven't seen the quality of mitt work and other drills common to boxing in panantukan. I see very static mitt work, haven't seen any specific panantukan bag or footwork, or jump rope or anything else for that matter. Of course it may not differ much from boxing much and that may explain wh we don't see it. Panantukan is in a "look what I can do" phase for the mainstream FMA culture right now. To me it seems like a way for weapons systems to show they have empty hand relevance too, which may be. But I have yet to see panantukan as a stand alone art, it seems more like it's used to make weapons systems more marketable to guys that aren't interested in weapons. It's cool and has potential but for more alive other arts to really get interested I think we're gonna have to see it in action. Unless the panantukan guys also box I doubt they'd have much luck applying it against a decent boxer even if the dirty tricks were aloud.


----------



## KPM (Feb 21, 2015)

Too often I think the Panantukan is just an "add on" that doesn't get emphasized or trained as much as the weapons.  But there are some that make it a major focus and do LOTS of quality mitt work.   Daniel Sullivan put out a series of DVDs in which he teaches everything as a responsive focus mitt drill.  So its out there.  Just not very common.  Yet.  ;-)


----------

