Wing Chun As An Art

[Gerry Seymour]

Then it is not too destructive or deadly to spar.

You missed the part about having to ratchet back and allow them an opening. I can't take it to the point of the break. For the techniques where there's a base to restrain them, it can be used as a submission. But some don't contain that base, so in order to be destructive they have to be used fast and hard. If you back off, the opponent can move out of them if they choose to ignore the reason you backed off.

I keep hoping I'll find someone who has a very similar version that provides a base for submission. That would open those techniques up more. I'd give up some of the destructive capacity for a bit of submission control (useful in sparring and another option in defensive use). I've seen one of them in a Judo book, and maybe even in a BJJ video, but if the opponent has any knowledge of the technique and you stop before the destruction, it's pretty easy to counter - and things go badly from that position. Another I've seen used as a takedown (ostensibly instead of a break to the hand), but I've not found anyone who could make it a takedown if I stood up, doing it slowly. Doing it fast, that standing up drives into the destruction - can't verify that at speed, of course, without risking the break.

 

[drop bear]

You missed the part about having to ratchet back and allow them an opening. I can't take it to the point of the break. For the techniques where there's a base to restrain them, it can be used as a submission. But some don't contain that base, so in order to be destructive they have to be used fast and hard. If you back off, the opponent can move out of them if they choose to ignore the reason you backed off.

I keep hoping I'll find someone who has a very similar version that provides a base for submission. That would open those techniques up more. I'd give up some of the destructive capacity for a bit of submission control (useful in sparring and another option in defensive use). I've seen one of them in a Judo book, and maybe even in a BJJ video, but if the opponent has any knowledge of the technique and you stop before the destruction, it's pretty easy to counter - and things go badly from that position. Another I've seen used as a takedown (ostensibly instead of a break to the hand), but I've not found anyone who could make it a takedown if I stood up, doing it slowly. Doing it fast, that standing up drives into the destruction - can't verify that at speed, of course, without risking the break.

Then it is nothing like your uppercut example.

And look up Russian ties.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Then it is nothing like your uppercut example.

It's an analogy, not an exact match. The point is just that there are other things, besides the destructive locks, that aren't used fully in practice. Your point about the use of the moderate uppercut is valid. I guess the closest analog to that in my example would be using the grip to off-balance, without the lock. That I can do at whatever speed and power I wish.

And look up Russian ties.

I'll look that up - I'm not familiar with the term. Thanks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And look up Russian ties.

The videos I saw didn't look like there was a lock in that. A nice takedown - most of the principles look familiar - but not (at least in those videos) related to a lock without a base.

 

[drop bear]

The videos I saw didn't look like there was a lock in that. A nice takedown - most of the principles look familiar - but not (at least in those videos) related to a lock without a base.

If you isolate the arm you have the lock. If you dont isolate the arm you don't. If you are trying to do arm locks from front on in the hope you will snatch off a destruction before you get uppercutted. (See what I did there?) Then you are playing a very high risk game.

Which is why Uppercuts work in sparring and your arm locks don't. Because I can throw an uppercut from a relatively safe position.

This is the fundemental distinction of too deadly to spar. The I dont want to kill you version still works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you isolate the arm you have the lock. If you dont isolate the arm you don't. If you are trying to do arm locks from front on in the hope you will snatch off a destruction before you get uppercutted. (See what I did there?) Then you are playing a very high risk game.

But I don't. Arm locks are rarely well suited to being in front. Off to the side at a deep angle, or behind the shoulder, sure.

Which is why Uppercuts work in sparring and your arm locks don't. Because I can throw an uppercut from a relatively safe position.

Except that this has nothing to do with my locks, since if I'm attempting most of them, I'm actually outside their striking range for the free arm. Your response leads me to believe you don't know anything about the locks.

This is the fundemental distinction of too deadly to spar. The I dont want to kill you version still works.

That comment has nothing to do with the argument you just made. And you're really stuck on "too deadly to spar", which is a deliberate argument from the extreme. There are techniques which are not safe for fully live work. And many of them are quite effective. How do I know? Because many of them once were used in competition, and were ruled away because they caused too many injuries. "Not safe for full-speed sparring" is not a claim to supernatural powers - it's a recognition that some things cause injuries when they work.

Look, it's pretty simple. If someone catches my finger in sparring and bends it back as hard and fast as they can, I probably can't tap out fast enough to stop them from causing real injury. And there's not a lot of room between the beginnings of pain (where I could choose to submit) and the injury (too late). That's not a fantasy thing - it's a reality thing.

 

[ShortBridge]

Colorado

I probably know the Duncan Leung student who stopped by or his sifu. Keep on being posative!

 

[drop bear]

But I don't. Arm locks are rarely well suited to being in front. Off to the side at a deep angle, or behind the shoulder, sure.


Except that this has nothing to do with my locks, since if I'm attempting most of them, I'm actually outside their striking range for the free arm. Your response leads me to believe you don't know anything about the locks.

That comment has nothing to do with the argument you just made. And you're really stuck on "too deadly to spar", which is a deliberate argument from the extreme. There are techniques which are not safe for fully live work. And many of them are quite effective. How do I know? Because many of them once were used in competition, and were ruled away because they caused too many injuries. "Not safe for full-speed sparring" is not a claim to supernatural powers - it's a recognition that some things cause injuries when they work.

Look, it's pretty simple. If someone catches my finger in sparring and bends it back as hard and fast as they can, I probably can't tap out fast enough to stop them from causing real injury. And there's not a lot of room between the beginnings of pain (where I could choose to submit) and the injury (too late). That's not a fantasy thing - it's a reality thing.

So you are basically wanting your cake and to eat it too. All these locks are super safe positionally to go for but also so effective that you cant train them live.

And you are telling this to somone who has had a career in hitting armlocks in fights. Against fully resisting guys. Whith a reasonably good record for not crippling people in the process.

That is quite simply balls.

You seem to be suggesting you cant effectively use a technique unless you hit that technique as fast and hard as you can. So like the uppercut or bending a finger back it is either full noise or wasted effort.

Your too deadly to spar definition is a strawman. Too deadly to spar is about removing realistic feedback on the grounds that your techniques will kill or maim the oponant. Not that there is a potential for injury if you are training with a spaz.

Every punch kick and throw can cripple a guy at full power if done with the intent to cripple.

Double legs are too deadly to spar because at full noise you can spike a guy on their head? Yet people can spar with them and use them effectively. So at that point they do not become too deadly to spar.

Now the reason behind the too deadly to spar concept is a technique that you can't employ because you have trained it like a gumby. Is not really a high percentage technique. Regardless of how dangerous it could potentially be.

The concept of too deadly to spar applies to every technique trained unrealistically.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you are basically wanting your cake and to eat it too. All these locks are super safe positionally to go for but also so effective that you cant train them live.

It's not about "so effective". They are no more effective than any other wrist lock. It's just a limitation on the range the lock works in, before damage occurs. I don't see why it bothers you so much that we don't do locks in dangerous positions. Some of these might be available out there, but we wouldn't have taken structure, and would be exposed to strikes. Wouldn't make much sense to try them out there, and they'd almost certainly be less effective.

And you are telling this to somone who has had a career in hitting armlocks in fights. Against fully resisting guys. Whith a reasonably good record for not crippling people in the process.

Telling you what? I've not argued that no locks can be used. We have several that work quite nicely for both submission and control. I've trained alongside LEO's and bouncers who used them (they tended not to train the others much, to avoid going to them without thought).

You seem to be suggesting you cant effectively use a technique unless you hit that technique as fast and hard as you can. So like the uppercut or bending a finger back it is either full noise or wasted effort.

You seem to not understand that some locks (note that I've never said this of locks in general - just of the few in question) don't have a submission/control range. For those locks, yes, there's not much utility in them if you're not going to finish them. It's a limitation of the technique.

Your too deadly to spar definition is a strawman.

A strawman is a fake argument, designed to avoid a real argument. Like you repeatedly using "too deadly", which I've never claimed.

I think we're done here, since you're arguing about techniques, without ever asking which ones they are, and are repeating arguments that ignore facts. I'll see you in the threads where you're still making sense.

 

[drop bear]

It's not about "so effective". They are no more effective than any other wrist lock. It's just a limitation on the range the lock works in, before damage occurs. I don't see why it bothers you so much that we don't do locks in dangerous positions. Some of these might be available out there, but we wouldn't have taken structure, and would be exposed to strikes. Wouldn't make much sense to try them out there, and they'd almost certainly be less effective.


Telling you what? I've not argued that no locks can be used. We have several that work quite nicely for both submission and control. I've trained alongside LEO's and bouncers who used them (they tended not to train the others much, to avoid going to them without thought).


You seem to not understand that some locks (note that I've never said this of locks in general - just of the few in question) don't have a submission/control range. For those locks, yes, there's not much utility in them if you're not going to finish them. It's a limitation of the technique.


A strawman is a fake argument, designed to avoid a real argument. Like you repeatedly using "too deadly", which I've never claimed.

I think we're done here, since you're arguing about techniques, without ever asking which ones they are, and are repeating arguments that ignore facts. I'll see you in the threads where you're still making sense.

We have techniques. You mentioned two so far. Upper cuts and finger bending. Both can be trained live. If you want to mention other techniques then mention them.

You are contradicting yourself. And then complain about how people get the wrong impression. That is disonest. And you do this a lot.

your argument of too deadly to spar now seems to be too deadly to spar at full speed. That is a strawman. Nobody has suggested ripping peoples arms and legs off. You just made that up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We have techniques. You mentioned two so far. Upper cuts and finger bending. Both can be trained live. If you want to mention other techniques then mention them.

You are contradicting yourself. And then complain about how people get the wrong impression. That is disonest. And you do this a lot.

I've made no contradictions about the techniques in question. You don't understand them, and have made arguments about them, nonetheless. Both uppercut and finger bend were examples. I could mention "Third Set Wrist", but I don't know a name that is any more useful for even a similar technique (though I'm fairly certain it exists elsewhere), and nobody outside NGA calls it that. That's the best example I can give, because it has a bit of a history of breaking bones by accident. That's the technique that actually started this whole discussion.

Now, since you've stooped to calling me "dishonest", I'm truly done on this one. You're okay to debate with when you stick to facts, and don't stoop to crap like that and arguing without finding out what you're arguing about.

 

[drop bear]

I've made no contradictions about the techniques in question. You don't understand them, and have made arguments about them, nonetheless. Both uppercut and finger bend were examples. I could mention "Third Set Wrist", but I don't know a name that is any more useful for even a similar technique (though I'm fairly certain it exists elsewhere), and nobody outside NGA calls it that. That's the best example I can give, because it has a bit of a history of breaking bones by accident. That's the technique that actually started this whole discussion.

Now, since you've stooped to calling me "dishonest", I'm truly done on this one. You're okay to debate with when you stick to facts, and don't stoop to crap like that and arguing without finding out what you're arguing about.

So when I stoop to personal assesments of your posting style you get butt hurt. But a perfectly legitimate tactic for you?

Like you just did in this post.

And I do understand uppercuts and finger bending. They were the examples you used. They didn't fit your explaination. I can bend a finger back and get a result without breaking it. I can uppercut someone and get a result.

If you make your point contradictory. You will never get the sort of discussion you want because your theory is allready flawed.

And seriously google.
Because if your mysterious unexplainable third set wrist lock is a basic s lock that everybody does and everybody understands.

I am going to be seriously unimpressed.

 

[drop bear]

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And he point of that post?

 

[drop bear]

I always feel that the message "too deadly to spar" is in fact "im not skilled enough to apply my techniques or principles in a fighting scenario". I have heard that to many times in Silat, "we don't spar because it's all lethal techniques" bla bla bla.

Well me and our guys in the school do spar, standup, throws, groundwork all of that

Correct. And look if you dont spar the technique is mostly theoretical. If nobody spars it. then it mostly hope.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When you apply the wrist lock, your opponent will bend and raise his elbow to counter it. If you follow up with a shoulder lock, you will have to straight his bending elbow which is "force against force". IMO, to change from wrist lock into elbow lock is better. If your opponent wants to bend his elbow, you want to "borrow his force" and help him to bend his elbow even more.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you apply the wrist lock, your opponent will bend and raise his elbow to counter it. If you follow up with a shoulder lock, you will have to straight his bending elbow which is "force against force". IMO, to change from wrist lock into elbow lock is better. If your opponent wants to bend his elbow, you want to "borrow his force" and help him to bend his elbow even more.

If that wrist lock actually gets started, there's little chance of a counter. The issue with it, IMO, is that there's little chance of it occurring in sparring. It's a response to a grab, and a type of grab anyone with some skill will not offer. All you have to do is straighten your arm before the lock starts, and that particular lock is not there. Bending the arm doesn't stop it, and raising the elbow just changes the angle, turning the lock into a control (no pain), unless you have stiff wrists, in which case it doesn't even do that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

All you have to do is straighten your arm before the lock starts, and that particular lock is not there.

To respond to a joint lock, there are 2 different approaches.

1. Don't give your opponent any chance to apply joint lock on you.
2. Let your opponent to apply a joint lock on you, you then take advantage and counter it.

IMO, 2 > 1. If you can raise your elbow and smash your elbow at your opponent's chest, you are doing both defense and counter.

This principle also apply in wrestling. You can

1. deflect your opponent's arms away from your body so he can't establish any contact point on you.
2. Let your opponent to grab you, you then use his grabbing as your "free contact point".

Again, 2 > 1

This principle also apply in the striking art, You can

1. run away from your opponent's punch.
2. When your opponent punches you, you let him to run into your kick.

Again, 2 > 1

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To respond to a joint lock, there are 2 different approaches.

1. Don't give your opponent any chance to apply joint lock on you.
2. Let your opponent to apply a joint lock on you, you then take advantage and counter it.

IMO, 2 > 1. If you can raise your elbow and smash your elbow at your opponent's chest, you are doing both defense and counter.

This principle also apply in wrestling. You can

1. deflect your opponent's arms away from your body so he can't establish any contact point on you.
2. Let your opponent to grab you, you then use his grabbing as your "free contact point".

Again, 2 > 1

This principle also apply in the striking art, You can

1. run away from your opponent's punch.
2. When your opponent punches you, you let him to run into your kick.

Again, 2 > 1

If the lock is actually started (the joint is bound) the elbow cannot reach the chest. The rotation at the wrist restricts that. That lock can be destructive, so 1>2.

 

[FighterTwister]

Would have liked to have seen Ip Man in the younger years.............................

He looks good there!