Tackling the Tackle

[7starmantis]

MR STARMANTIS777



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

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

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

Well, lets take a look....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7sm

 

[SAVAGE]

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



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

and this is the crux

"that I feel would not work at all!"

Then you need to eat less curry



Yes but not Wing Chun



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




Thats nice





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




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





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





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





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






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




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





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






I am glad I could oblige

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

*bows respectfully*

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
MR STARMANTIS777



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

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

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

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

Well, lets take a look....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackling the Tackle
From what I have seen in the 'UFC' matches, in my own training, and various other situations...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ED-SWCKF[/B]]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Mr ED-SWCKF



All MA is hard work!


Yeah i was talking more about a literal translation.

OK!

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Point!

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


Learn to do it or learn to counter it?

Both actually!

 

[7starmantis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:asian:
7sm

 

[ed-swckf]

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

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

 

[SAVAGE]

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

If thats the case, why are martial arts boards like this so popular?

1. To learn and grow!

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

1. Then articles shouldnt be written in such tones!

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

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

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

1. I disagree!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   1. Moving "towards and away from" in order to catch your opponent makinga mistake to his center is much different from your originally posted idea of actually unbalancing your opponent. You said specifically you were refering to "pushing/pulling" the opponenets body to unbalance them.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Quote:
   Originally Posted by SAVAGE
   No a technique to me is effective if you can make it work more times than it fails...IMHO the technique described will fail more times than it works!
   
   Thats not an accurate measurement of effectiveness. What your describing is skill not effectiveness of a specific technique. If I was to apply a specific technique on one of our beginner students it's "effectiveness" (as measured by your statement) would be quite good. However, the same technique applied by me on my instructor would see a terrible decline in "effectiveness". I propose that the technique would fail in your mind because you have nothing invested in it. You have not trained in it or against it and therefore have not seen its ability to work...therefore leaving in your mind only its failure.
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SAVAGE]

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

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

 

[ed-swckf]

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

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

 

[SAVAGE]

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

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

 

[bcbernam777]

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

 

[Andrew Green]

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

 

[7starmantis]

To learn and grow!

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

Then articles shouldnt be written in such tones!

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

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

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

I disagree!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7sm

 

[bcbernam777]

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

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

 

[SAVAGE]

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

Now the defender is using:

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

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

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

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

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

Just abit of info from the article regarding this:

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

So it is taken into account by the shooter!

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE

To learn and grow!


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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Then articles shouldnt be written in such tones!


That’s the thing, it wasn't. Your missing my point, no written text can cover every possible angle or possibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right here:

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE

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


I didn't say you changed the text, again maybe you should read posts more carefully in the future.

let me quote a earlier post:

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

To whom were you refering then?

The article was written against a set idea of what attack it defends against. In fact, the article speaks of avoiding contact alltogether, meaning its meant to be defending against a "shoot" or lunging attack from long distance, not from close quarters where contact has allready been made. You changed up how you would shoot and defeat this technique and in doing so went outside the parameters of the aticle itself.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE

I disagree!


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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE

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



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

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

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

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

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

My phone Number is (679) 9213201

 

[bcbernam777]

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

My phone Number is (679) 9213201

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

 

[7starmantis]

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

Now....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it is taken into account by the shooter!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right here:

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

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

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

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

To whom were you refering then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7sm

 

[SAVAGE]

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

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

How are the mods about putting up vids?

 

[7starmantis]

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

7sm

 

[SAVAGE]

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

This should answer some of your questions.

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

 

[SAVAGE]

Thank You!