ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Buka]

Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many. Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.

Apologies for cherry picking from such a long, detailed post, but for many of us on the East Coast, Karate started going through a renaissance right around nineteen eighty.

 

[geezer]

that then begs a big question or two, one,,,,if it doesnt look like WC how do you know it is WC and two,,, what are these core WC Principles and how do I tell them from say lau gar principles

Do you really care what it looks like if it works? What something looks like is a "style" ...good for making movies. What works is a system. An effective system is ...well, effective!

As to what these principles are... If I can use the DTE-MMA group as an example, since I've trained some Escrima with them, I believe that their core principles include:

1. Get an angle
2. Maintain forward intent
3. Diamondpoint

Getting an angle in relation to your opponent involves using positioning, --footwork, distance, and pressure to get an advantageous angle on your opponent so you are striking to his center, while he is not well aligned to hit you.

Forward intent is pretty self-explanatory. You keep the pressure on, even when retreating. Forward pressure is a more limited application of the same idea.

Diamondpoint is DTE head-coach Martin Torres' term for instantaneous, pin-point transition from one movement to another, or to put it in Wing Chun terms, minimum movement with maximum efficiency.

Beyond these three core principles, there are more, somewhat more specific concepts. One that comes to mind just now is when possible, use short-power. That would be to develop proficiency at explosive, short-range, non-telegraphic power generation. Like the one-inch punch. Or, in DTE, like Escrima master Rene Latosa's well known short, powerful punches using principles from boxing and cadena de mano.

Now how you could differentiate these principles from WC, Lau Gar, or Cadena de Mano integrated with MMA in the ring? Hell if I know. They are fighting principles. They should be somewhat universal, right? Maybe that's something we forget when we get too hung up on style.

 

[jobo]

Do you really care what it looks like if it works? What something looks like is a "style" ...good for making movies. What works is a system. An effective system is ...well, effective!

As to what these principles are... If I can use the DTE-MMA group as an example, since I've trained some Escrima with them, I believe that their core principles include:

1. Get an angle
2. Maintain forward intent
3. Diamondpoint

Getting an angle in relation to your opponent involves using positioning, --footwork, distance, and pressure to get an advantageous angle on your opponent so you are striking to his center, while he is not well aligned to hit you.

Forward intent is pretty self-explanatory. You keep the pressure on, even when retreating. Forward pressure is a more limited application of the same idea.

Diamondpoint is DTE head-coach Martin Torres' term for instantaneous, pin-point transition from one movement to another, or to put it in Wing Chun terms, minimum movement with maximum efficiency.

Beyond these three core principles, there are more, somewhat more specific concepts. One that comes to mind just now is when possible, use short-power. That would be to develop proficiency at explosive, short-range, non-telegraphic power generation. Like the one-inch punch. Or, in DTE, like Escrima master Rene Latosa's well known short, powerful punches using principles from boxing and cadena de mano.

Now how you could differentiate these principles from WC, Lau Gar, or Cadena de Mano integrated with MMA in the ring? Hell if I know. They are fighting principles. They should be somewhat universal, right? Maybe that's something we forget when we get too hung up on style.

no I care what IT looks like if your claiming its based on WC and have no method of evidencing that

if they are as you later suggest just principles of fighting common to a number of arts, then that even more suspicion that what you are seeing is not WC

 

[Martial D]

Do you really care what it looks like if it works? What something looks like is a "style" ...good for making movies. What works is a system. An effective system is ...well, effective!

As to what these principles are... If I can use the DTE-MMA group as an example, since I've trained some Escrima with them, I believe that their core principles include:

1. Get an angle
2. Maintain forward intent
3. Diamondpoint

Getting an angle in relation to your opponent involves using positioning, --footwork, distance, and pressure to get an advantageous angle on your opponent so you are striking to his center, while he is not well aligned to hit you.

Forward intent is pretty self-explanatory. You keep the pressure on, even when retreating. Forward pressure is a more limited application of the same idea.

Diamondpoint is DTE head-coach Martin Torres' term for instantaneous, pin-point transition from one movement to another, or to put it in Wing Chun terms, minimum movement with maximum efficiency.

Beyond these three core principles, there are more, somewhat more specific concepts. One that comes to mind just now is when possible, use short-power. That would be to develop proficiency at explosive, short-range, non-telegraphic power generation. Like the one-inch punch. Or, in DTE, like Escrima master Rene Latosa's well known short, powerful punches using principles from boxing and cadena de mano.

Now how you could differentiate these principles from WC, Lau Gar, or Cadena de Mano integrated with MMA in the ring? Hell if I know. They are fighting principles. They should be somewhat universal, right? Maybe that's something we forget when we get too hung up on style.

Yes but, if someone does something that looks nothing like a style, ie the movements are different, the hand game is different, the mechanics and power generation are different, regardless of effectiveness, can what he is doing still rightly be described as that style?

 

[DaveB]

who knows? That's the point. This entire discussion is way to loosey goosey. I get where you're trying to go, and don't entirely disagree. I just think you speak in absolute terms without acknowledging all of the subjectivity inherent to your argument.

We don't have a common understanding of what is meant by "works." What does that mean? Works on whom? How often does something have to work in order to be deemed effective or successful? Once? Twice? Once against a new guy?

What's the measurable test for works outside the dojo? A news clipping? Use by a pro mma fighter?

Once again, I don't completely disagree, but you can't get in other posters for lack of cogent arguments or for misapplying a premise when you're guilty of some intellectual laziness yourself.

Except that this post is s response to a common attitude. Your questions about what works should as much be directed to those on the other side of the argument.

And while you might think in that kind of detail the people I've taken to task have no such excuse. And the more detail I put the more confused some become. Like when I expanded upon martial D's argument and he accused me of moving the goal posts.

We had fallen into talking about what does and doesn't work from within a style which is a slightly different issue to the point of the thread. I think we would need a thread per style to do that one. Though I am curious: for all the hate wing chun gets, what do you all feel is actually wrong with the art?

Applied to the thread topic proper I feel it's somewhat moot. The premise put simply is that performance is determined by training. What level of performance is irrelevant. If you want to get to that level you must train to that level.

 

[geezer]

no I care what IT looks like if your claiming its based on WC and have no method of evidencing that
if they are as you later suggest just principles of fighting common to a number of arts, then that even more suspicion that what you are seeing is not WC

Evidence? Suspicion? ...Whatever.

To use the DTE example, if coach Martin says the principles he's working with on a given day come from WC, that's good enough for me. Or, if he says he's pulling them from his boxing background, why would I doubt him? If coach Jeff says what we're doing comes from Pikiti, I'll take him at his word. Usually we find common ground across systems anyway. I don't really see the problem.

As for straight-up VT/WC ...that's what I teach. But cross training with folks like the DTE guys also works for me.

 

[geezer]

Yes but, if someone does something that looks nothing like a style, ie the movements are different, the hand game is different, the mechanics and power generation are different, regardless of effectiveness, can what he is doing still rightly be described as that style?

Rightly? Probably not. But I don't lose sleep over it.

 

[Buka]

Looking back, I've never been beaten by a Monkey Style Kung-Fu guy. Probably because I never met a Monkey Style Kung-Fu guy. Just about every other kind of guy has whooped my butt at one time or another, just like I've whooped theirs.

I've never heard a fighter say, "I lost to Tae-Kwon-Do, or Kenpo, American Karate, or even Sinanju". Instead, they've said, "Yeah, that guy beat me." Or whatever.

I've also rarely seen two dojos of the same style train or fight the same way, and I've visited a lot of dojos over the years.

Now, you my make the argument that Style Such and Such would be crap in MMA. But Style Such and Such isn't particularly concerned about MMA. You can even say that Style Such and Such could never beat you. [you in general] But it's not concerned with you, "you" being the highly trained Martial Artist you are. And you may be be right - until an equally tenacious version of you comes along from that style. I've seen that quite a bit over the years.

I agree with the OP. I think all Styles can work for self defense, if trained right. Except for, you know, Monkey Style Kung-Fu.

And if a Monkey guy comes at me, I'm running. Freaks me out how they look like fricken' Monkeys. Shades of those flying suckers from the Wizard of Oz.

 

[jobo]

Evidence? Suspicion? ...Whatever.

To use the DTE example, if coach Martin says the principles he's working with on a given day come from WC, that's good enough for me. Or, if he says he's pulling them from his boxing background, why would I doubt him? If coach Jeff says what we're doing comes from Pikiti, I'll take him at his word. Usually we find common ground across systems anyway. I don't really see the problem.

As for straight-up VT/WC ...that's what I teach. But cross training with folks like the DTE guys also works for me.

you took the time to high light my post to tell me I was WRONG, what coach jeff say has no weight with me, I think it only reasonable that YOU should adequately explain why you think I was wrong. Not tell me what some bloke called Jeff told you

 

[DaveB]

you took the time to high light my post to tell me I was WRONG, what coach jeff say has no weight with me, I think it only reasonable that YOU should adequately explain why you think I was wrong. Not tell me what some bloke called Jeff told you

So the guy teaching tells you where he got the thing he's teaching and you're going to tell him "it doesn't matter what you say I want to see proof in how it looks"

Glad to know it's not just me that confuses you.

 

[jobo]

So the guy teaching tells you where he got the thing he's teaching and you're going to tell him "it doesn't matter what you say I want to see proof in how it looks"

Glad to know it's not just me that confuses you.

he said people were using wing Chun very effectively to actual fight but it looks nothing at all like wing Chun, that's deserves an explanation of how he knows its wing Chun, other than some bloke told me it was

 

[Steve]

you took the time to high light my post to tell me I was WRONG, what coach jeff say has no weight with me, I think it only reasonable that YOU should adequately explain why you think I was wrong. Not tell me what some bloke called Jeff told you

Jeff says that you should explain why what he says has no weight with you. He also thinks your avatar is a little creepy.

 

[jobo]

Jeff says that you should explain why what he says has no weight with you. He also thinks your avatar is a little creepy.

its a killer clown, its supposed to be,creepy, I had a creepier one but it was to many pixels, so had to settle for the less creepy one

 

[Steve]

Except that this post is s response to a common attitude. Your questions about what works should as much be directed to those on the other side of the argument.

And while you might think in that kind of detail the people I've taken to task have no such excuse. And the more detail I put the more confused some become. Like when I expanded upon martial D's argument and he accused me of moving the goal posts.

We had fallen into talking about what does and doesn't work from within a style which is a slightly different issue to the point of the thread. I think we would need a thread per style to do that one. Though I am curious: for all the hate wing chun gets, what do you all feel is actually wrong with the art?

Applied to the thread topic proper I feel it's somewhat moot. The premise put simply is that performance is determined by training. What level of performance is irrelevant. If you want to get to that level you must train to that level.

Okay. Last try. It looks to me like you, Martial D and a few others are all having very specific discussions, without taking the time to ensure you all agree on definitions, much less a common understanding of the premises. That is all. Carry on.

Oh, and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever suggested that something is wrong with WC... except the anti-grappling.

Regarding the premise, I agree that performance is determined by several things, one of which is training. Another is transfer of knowledge from training to application. I believe that "if you want to get to that level you must train to that level" is overly simplistic and not always true. People do things all the time for which they receive poor training. Happens all the time. People report to work, are given a manual or some cursory instruction and then are expected to just figure it out. Sink or swim, as they say. This goes for physical activities, as well.

 

[DaveB]

Okay. Last try. It looks to me like you, Martial D and a few others are all having very specific discussions, without taking the time to ensure you all agree on definitions, much less a common understanding of the premises. That is all. Carry on.

Oh, and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever suggested that something is wrong with WC... except the anti-grappling.

Regarding the premise, I agree that performance is determined by several things, one of which is training. Another is transfer of knowledge from training to application. I believe that "if you want to get to that level you must train to that level" is overly simplistic and not always true. People do things all the time for which they receive poor training. Happens all the time. People report to work, are given a manual or some cursory instruction and then are expected to just figure it out. Sink or swim, as they say. This goes for physical activities, as well.

Then I refer you to the thread title:

...if you train it right

 

[geezer]

he said people were using wing Chun very effectively to actual fight but it looks nothing at all like wing Chun, that's deserves an explanation of how he knows its wing Chun, other than some bloke told me it was

I said that people were effectively using "core combative principles" from WC. How do I know it's WC? Well for one thing the coaches say it is. Secondly, they show me what they mean. And thirdly, based on my experience as a WC/VT practitioner since 1979 that's ...what 38 years? ...yeah. Based on that I make up my mind.

Also, I might add, that just because I "disagreed" with you is no reason to get your knickers in a twist. It doesn't mean that you are "WRONG" ...just that we disagree. To a degree anyway. Hell, tomorrow I might change my mind. What's left of it anyway...

 

[geezer]

Oh, and I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever suggested that something is wrong with WC... except the anti-grappling.

Interesting development on that topic. The EWTO --some of the WC/VT/WT people most notorious for their anti-grappling programs emerging in the 80s and 90s to counter the rising popularity of BJJ (imagine that) have finally started promoting a serious, legit grappling program with Gokor Chivichyan and Karen Garabedyan.

Now why would they do that... unless you were right all along about the appalling inadequacy of their "anti-grappling"! Just sayin'.

 

[drop bear]

Then I refer you to the thread title:

...if you train it right

Which implies you are doing a style that works. Because doing something that makes sense is training it right.

Is that your theory?

 

[drop bear]

I said that people were effectively using "core combative principles" from WC. How do I know it's WC? Well for one thing the coaches say it is. Secondly, they show me what they mean. And thirdly, based on my experience as a WC/VT practitioner since 1979 that's ...what 38 years? ...yeah. Based on that I make up my mind.

Also, I might add, that just because I "disagreed" with you is no reason to get your knickers in a twist. It doesn't mean that you are "WRONG" ...just that we disagree. To a degree anyway. Hell, tomorrow I might change my mind. What's left of it anyway...

Is the fighting wing chun in the same way star signs predict the future?

Bits and pieces are right that we can sort of piece together after the fact.

 

[geezer]

Is the fighting wing chun in the same way star signs predict the future?
Bits and pieces are right that we can sort of piece together after the fact.

Let me gat back to you after I review my star chart.