chain-punching damagewise.

[drop bear]

But that's not sparring.

Best i could find.

 

[guy b]

Best i could find.

Category error. Not sparring

 

[drop bear]

Category error. Not sparring

Yeah. But I just saw a bunch of sparring. And it still proved my assessment.

 

[Juany118]

So there is no sparring footage. No fighting footage. That is the best example we will get?

Then we may as well stick with that.

Well I showed you a video a few months ago of Sifu and Provisional Master Jerry Devone not sparing but straight up fighting in WC in MUSU a few years ago and even though most WC practitioners would say, "that was WC" even though you know little about it you kept saying it wasn't WC so whats the point? You even went looking for other videos of the same fight, and when I pointed out frame by frame that it was WC you still protested. What's the point then. If it looks like real fighting or sparring to you it isn't WC. If it doesn't look "real" to you it morphs into WC. So we get you have something against WC, let it lie.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Best i could find.

That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.

Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.

 

[Juany118]

That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.

Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.

Example...

Here is a WC fight. Sifu Jerry visits my school regularly and in TWC he is the "real deal." I see the WC in what he does, but others say "that can't be WC" because it...works.

PS, won't say Sifu Jerry didn't have this guy overmatched. There is another fight from the same event that is far more even. Just wanted to share this to prove a point

 

[drop bear]

Well I showed you a video a few months ago of Sifu and Provisional Master Jerry Devone not sparing but straight up fighting in WC in MUSU a few years ago and even though most WC practitioners would say, "that was WC" even though you know little about it you kept saying it wasn't WC so whats the point? You even went looking for other videos of the same fight, and when I pointed out frame by frame that it was WC you still protested. What's the point then. If it looks like real fighting or sparring to you it isn't WC. If it doesn't look "real" to you it morphs into WC. So we get you have something against WC, let it lie.

But ok. you dont tell the full story. This was on a discussion on how wing chun have a unique method of punching that do not require any wind up.

That was the punches he wasn't winding up on. But just looked like he did. Because wing chun has a completely different method of generating force to every body else?

And where you just started making any old thing up to fit your own script?

Was it that video?

And yes I just looked at the video. That was the video.

 

[drop bear]

That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.

Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.

It was the closest anyone could find. Bear in mind there was no example to counter that.

None.

So it is still the best example.

Now if you showed a video of bjj butt flopping and i can't make a case on my own evidence.

Then they butt flop. It is not because you hate BJJ.

And wing chun do fight in the pocket. So i was right in that assesment.

 

[Juany118]

But ok. you dont tell the full story. This was on a discussion on how wing chun have a unique method of punching that do not require any wind up.

That was the punches he wasn't winding up on. But just looked like he did. Because wing chun has a completely different method of generating force to every body else?

And where you just started making any old thing up to fit your own script?

Was it that video?

And yes I just looked at the video. That was the video.

I never said that they had a completely different method. What I said was that the strikes follow a premise of "keeping" weight behind the punch vs "throwing" various arts do both at the same time, WC in this regard is rather specific however.
To say the above only says WC follows a particular path because my posting of the video was to challenge you when you said WC doesn't work. I showed the theories did in the ring and you struggled to show it didn't.

Regardless. Videos exist that show WC/VT do work but, for some reason, ever since I have joined this forum as soon as WC effectiveness comes in question you charge in like a knight in armor to say it doesn't and, as you lack zero experience with the art, I am confused as to why.

I can even say it works for me dealing with street crime. I would never say what you study fails in your job BUT with no knowledge of one of my arts you are arrogant enough to say it doesn't work? Seems odd to me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

I never said that they had a completely different method. What I said was that the strikes follow a premise of "keeping" weight behind the punch vs "throwing" various arts do both at the same time, WC in this regard is rather specific however.
To say the above only says WC follows a particular path because my posting of the video was to challenge you when you said WC doesn't work. I showed the theories did in the ring and you struggled to show it didn't.

Regardless. Videos exist that show WC/VT do work but, for some reason, ever since I have joined this forum as soon as WC effectiveness comes in question you charge in like a knight in armor to say it doesn't and, as you lack zero experience with the art, I am confused as to why.

I can even say it works for me dealing with street crime. I would never say what you study fails in your job BUT with no knowledge of one of my arts you are arrogant enough to say it doesn't work? Seems odd to me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

As I said in your case you make stuff up. I catch you out you just make up more stuff.

That isn't arrogant. That is just being honest.

 

[Steve]

That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.

Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.

it would be insane to suggest this about BJJ precisely because there is ample evidence to the contrary.

It's not insane in the absence of any more credible evidence.

Actually, reading your post again, it's actually true that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat. Mostly. The drill creates the muscle memory and I can provide a lot of video examples of how that drill translates to sparring and into application in competition. And what's cool is that it actually looks like shrimping at every stage.

 

[Juany118]

As I said in your case you make stuff up. I catch you out you just make up more stuff.

That isn't arrogant. That is just being honest.

Well if I actually make stuff up a multitude here on the forum can call me out yet you are the only one to say such... Occam's Razor thus says the invention is in your mind and not reality, unless you believe you know more than everyone else. Everytime you have challenged me I have stated fact. Pointed out videos and then you simply say "that isn't WC", when you have never actually learned WC.

Hell you tried to call out FMA and how it doesn't work and I linked historically documented battles in bonafide Wars where FMA was used... But I am the one who makes stuff up? The guy who can show videos of real fights and documented history is the one making stuff up vs the one who simply calls BS and makes fiat statements with no supporting evidence? Rofl.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It was the closest anyone could find. Bear in mind there was no example to counter that.

None.

So it is still the best example.

Now if you showed a video of bjj butt flopping and i can't make a case on my own evidence.

Then they butt flop. It is not because you hate BJJ.

And wing chun do fight in the pocket. So i was right in that assesment.

It might have been the best example you could find of WC technique, but since it's not an example of WC fighting, it's NOT the best example of that. Just because you don't have a Toyota handy, you don't grab a Ford and say, "Well, that's the best example of a Toyota we could find."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it would be insane to suggest this about BJJ precisely because there is ample evidence to the contrary.

It's not insane in the absence of any more credible evidence.

Actually, reading your post again, it's actually true that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat. Mostly. The drill creates the muscle memory and I can provide a lot of video examples of how that drill translates to sparring and into application in competition. And what's cool is that it actually looks like shrimping at every stage.

It would be accurate to say that's an aspect of BJJ, but to say that's how BJJ fights would be incorrect. There's a lot more to it that can't possibly be seen in a shrimping exercise, and trying to use that exercise to demonstrate how they fight would be silly. Now, if I used it as an example of movement used during a fight, that would be okay, since that's what it's a drill for, but I'd still have to acknowledge that it'll be different in the fight, because they have an opponent to work off of, etc.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It was the closest anyone could find. Bear in mind there was no example to counter that.

None.

So it is still the best example.

Now if you showed a video of bjj butt flopping and i can't make a case on my own evidence.

Then they butt flop. It is not because you hate BJJ.

And wing chun do fight in the pocket. So i was right in that assesment.

You know, this points out a major inconsistency in your arguments, Drop Bear. You won't use anecdotal evidence (case studies as relayed by the people involved) of self-defense as the evidence it is because you don't like the kind of evidence it is and the fact that it's not 100% trustable.

Then you turn around and take that video and try to use it as evidence IT IS NOT. You claim to want to take a "clinical" approach, yet what you're doing with that video is misuse of evidence to support a conclusion you've already drawn.

You claim to be a strict adherent to evidence (using only your own definition of evidence, which your statements seem to imply must be 100% verifiable and accurate to be useful at all), yet you have no problem using sideways evidence and claiming it to be what it isn't, so long as it suits your argument.

Remember that confirmation bias you mentioned a few posts ago?

 

[drop bear]

It might have been the best example you could find of WC technique, but since it's not an example of WC fighting, it's NOT the best example of that. Just because you don't have a Toyota handy, you don't grab a Ford and say, "Well, that's the best example of a Toyota we could find."

Yeah but that was still VT training to fight in the pocket. Just because they never actually fight shouldn't invalidate their training.

Training to fight is technically what we are discussing.

 

[Juany118]

You know, this points out a major inconsistency in your arguments, Drop Bear. You won't use anecdotal evidence (case studies as relayed by the people involved) of self-defense as the evidence it is because you don't like the kind of evidence it is and the fact that it's not 100% trustable.

Then you turn around and take that video and try to use it as evidence IT IS NOT. You claim to want to take a "clinical" approach, yet what you're doing with that video is misuse of evidence to support a conclusion you've already drawn.

You claim to be a strict adherent to evidence (using only your own definition of evidence, which your statements seem to imply must be 100% verifiable and accurate to be useful at all), yet you have no problem using sideways evidence and claiming it to be what it isn't, so long as it suits your argument.

Remember that confirmation bias you mentioned a few posts ago?

That method is inevitable with him though. He applies different rules to others than he follows and then uses that as proof he caught someone out. Well it's easy to make such claims when you change the rules to your benefit and have moving goal posts in an argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah but that was still VT training to fight in the pocket. Just because they never actually fight shouldn't invalidate their training.

Training to fight is technically what we are discussing.

Okay, used that way, it's a valid example of training to fight in the pocket (not the same as saying it's evidence they regularly do so). It's arguable whether we can use that as significant evidence that they regularly do so (I actually get the impression they do, by yours and Tony's definitions, but I'm a spectator to that style, so my judgment is not great evidence there), since it's just an exercise.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, used that way, it's a valid example of training to fight in the pocket (not the same as saying it's evidence they regularly do so). It's arguable whether we can use that as significant evidence that they regularly do so (I actually get the impression they do, by yours and Tony's definitions, but I'm a spectator to that style, so my judgment is not great evidence there), since it's just an exercise.

It could be solved by anybody coming up to the plate and suggesting how they do fight if it was different. You know an actual counter argument.

Surprised that did not happen 20 posts ago.

 

[drop bear]

That method is inevitable with him though. He applies different rules to others than he follows and then uses that as proof he caught someone out. Well it's easy to make such claims when you change the rules to your benefit and have moving goal posts in an argument.

So when you suggest this.

A WC punch is weird though. It's not about throwing your weight behind it, it's more about keeping your weight behind it. So a lot of the body "english" you use in other punches isn't there. Now there are stronger punches out there no doubt, but in a crush it can still be viable. Now there are limits of course but there is a reason some people describe WC as being an art one can use in a bathroom stall. Here is a video that I think illustrates the nature of the punching fairly well.

Is technically different to any other punch. It is me changing the goal posts.