Tackling the Tackle

[yipman_sifu]

Here is a discussion of Sifu David Peterson about grapplers techniques and how to respond to it.
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=92

 

[Andrew Green]

Well... Anytime someone starts of a description of how to defend a takedown with the line " From what I have seen in the 'UFC' matches" that should send up a red flag immediately.

What he is describing will not work against someone with decent takedown skills.

 

[7starmantis]

Well... Anytime someone starts of a description of how to defend a takedown with the line " From what I have seen in the 'UFC' matches" that should send up a red flag immediately.

What he is describing will not work against someone with decent takedown skills.

Would you mind explaining further why it wouldn't work? (I haven't read the entire article just yet, but the first bit seemed reasonable).

7sm

 

[Andrew Green]

When you shoot on someone you assume they are going to move, and you keep driving until you get them. Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged.

Not to mention that no one shoots without a set up. If I want to take you down I plan on hitting you first, shooting from a tie up or letting you step in and plant your heals.

The only reliable way to stop a shot is to learn how to sprawl, and all the things that go with it.

 

[Bigshadow]

When you shoot on someone you assume they are going to move, and you keep driving until you get them. Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged.

Not only that, the attacker can move faster forward than the defender can backwards, alllowing the attacker to easily over-take the defender. I haven't read the entire article, yet and I don't know anything about Wing Chun. However, I think in a very universal sense, one must change the shape of the attack to something other than what the attacker is expecting at the moment the attacker committed to the attack. This will mess with his dynamics and change his balance and so forth. But it certainly is not the end point, it is only the beginning.

 

[7starmantis]

When you shoot on someone you assume they are going to move, and you keep driving until you get them. Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged.

I have a hard time with discussion that use static absolutes such as, "Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged". I agree that the risk is present, but this is where your feel comes into play. If we look at it as a static movement where your left and right feet will move precisely to a set location within a set amount of space.....yes your right.

If however we look at the technique as a dynamic technique where you can adjust the distance according to your opponents distance and force; than the technique is pretty valid. I would add that the technique is only partially sound as described in that article. You must manipulate the balance and center of the lunging opponent. This could be to either side or even down, but must be done in order for the technique to work properly, otherwise you do run a great risk of being single legged. Basically its a "sprawl" in theory with a bit different footwork and intent. I personally use a technique quite similar with all my grappling buddies (including those having trained in the Gracie camp). It takes timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation, but techniques similar to what has been described can work quite effectively with a little more to them than as described in the article.

Not to mention that no one shoots without a set up. If I want to take you down I plan on hitting you first, shooting from a tie up or letting you step in and plant your heals.

Now this is a great point and one too many people ignore. However, too much emphasis is placed on the reaction of the person being hit. Many assume the hit or tie up is going to get them the upper hand, while I spend the majority of my time training from those scenarios. Its like UpNorth said in another thread, "If everyone is super, no one is". If everyone trains for the setup, the effectiveness is much less. In mantis thats a huge weapon of ours, we hit, kick, even chin na to set up things, so the idea that a setup will take away the defense is only partially true and quite oversimplified.

The only reliable way to stop a shot is to learn how to sprawl, and all the things that go with it.

I disagree with this statement 100% and I agree with it 100%.
What I mean is that there are many ways of "sprawling" and that can include a technique such as the one described in the article above. The major point is not the sprawl itself but the "all the things that go with it". If you understand the principles behind the sprawl you can manipulate it and adapt it to many different scenarios and techniques.

Just my opinions from my own training and experience,
7sm

 

[bcbernam777]

I agree with 7star, you are dealing absoluts much the way in which the author is. Steping backwards can be an effective strategy, particulary if you have developed the "root" in Wing Chun, because it means you have developed fast effective footwork that retains the SLT energy that allows the practicioner to maintain body unity thus allowing a moresolid defence against takedowns. However in the stepping back there is also the side step wich is not just a single step back, but more a constantly shifting point of refernce for the oponant to work with, constatnly needing to rechange his game plan in terms of where to initiate contact, therefore it would not simply be a matter of the grappler simply coming forward, his angle of attack would need to be constantly shifiting in order to match the Wing chun player. This being said it is of a certainty that even the most experiance grappler, would find it difficult to maintain the proper blance, and the constant moving would pay a toll on his body untiy and coordination, where as the Wing Chun player would maintain his untiy and coordination troughout (i.e. an experianced WC player). This shifting is however not the only way to deal with this type of attack, there are other methods, which are more dependent on the level of trainng that the Wing Chun practioner has developed, but we cant give away all of our secrets

 

[Andrew Green]

If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?

 

[bcbernam777]

If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?

Which one are you refering to?

 

[SAVAGE]

WOW!!!!! People actually believe this....I am sorry this just wont work!

This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!

I agree that the momentum is on the shooters side and you just cant back up that fast! Secondly if it was as easy as side stepping or back peddling BJJ wouldnt have the reputation that it does in the octagon!

Let me also adress a member here

I agree with 7star, you are dealing absoluts much the way in which the author is. Steping backwards can be an effective strategy, particulary if you have developed the "root" in Wing Chun, because it means you have developed fast effective footwork that retains the SLT energy that allows the practicioner to maintain body unity thus allowing a moresolid defence against takedowns.

If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate balance and strength that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!

Also Grapplers and people who take down train against this very type of rooted stance...I know I do!

However in the stepping back there is also the side step wich is not just a single step back, but more a constantly shifting point of refernce for the oponant to work with, constatnly needing to rechange his game plan in terms of where to initiate contact, therefore it would not simply be a matter of the grappler simply coming forward, his angle of attack would need to be constantly shifiting in order to match the Wing chun player. This being said it is of a certainty that even the most experiance grappler, would find it difficult to maintain the proper blance, and the constant moving would pay a toll on his body untiy and coordination, where as the Wing Chun player would maintain his untiy and coordination troughout (i.e. an experianced WC player).

Againyou show a lack of understanding as to exactly what grappling is....no matter who you fight the game plan needs to change constantly...then at the opportune moment you strike. That is how a takedown occurs...it is swift and it is set up..personally I like to rake the eyes....or kick the nuts before I take them down With a osoto gari....straight into a gata gatame...or another Shimewazza..for what you are speaking of a shoot isnt all grapplers know they have an extensive amount of throws from Judo and such...even the great Bruce Lee said that Judo was the most practical martial art!

This shifting is however not the only way to deal with this type of attack, there are other methods, which are more dependent on the level of trainng that the Wing Chun practioner has developed, but we cant give away all of our secrets

Right...now give us examples because this sounds like a cop out...maybe some evidence that they work...there is heaps of evidence that shooting/throwing works well against the defences you are talking about...also alot of evidence that grapplers beat wing chun players!

I have a hard time with discussion that use static absolutes such as, "Stepping back in the way he describes will get you single legged". I agree that the risk is present, but this is where your feel comes into play. If we look at it as a static movement where your left and right feet will move precisely to a set location within a set amount of space.....yes your right.

Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!

If however we look at the technique as a dynamic technique where you can adjust the distance according to your opponents distance and force; than the technique is pretty valid. I would add that the technique is only partially sound as described in that article. You must manipulate the balance and center of the lunging opponent.

A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!

This could be to either side or even down, but must be done in order for the technique to work properly, otherwise you do run a great risk of being single legged. Basically its a "sprawl" in theory with a bit different footwork and intent.

It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?

I personally use a technique quite similar with all my grappling buddies (including those having trained in the Gracie camp). It takes timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation, but techniques similar to what has been described can work quite effectively with a little more to them than as described in the article.

Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!

To grapple effectively you need timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation.

These buddies of yours are they at the same level as you...have they been training in BJJ as long as you h ave been training in Wing Chun...what are the variables!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Green
Not to mention that no one shoots without a set up. If I want to take you down I plan on hitting you first, shooting from a tie up or letting you step in and plant your heals.

Now this is a great point and one too many people ignore. However, too much emphasis is placed on the reaction of the person being hit. Many assume the hit or tie up is going to get them the upper hand, while I spend the majority of my time training from those scenarios. Its like UpNorth said in another thread, "If everyone is super, no one is". If everyone trains for the setup, the effectiveness is much less. In mantis thats a huge weapon of ours, we hit, kick, even chin na to set up things, so the idea that a setup will take away the defense is only partially true and quite oversimplified.

I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!

The fact is to a certain degree a reaction can be had....scraping someones eyes may not force them to grab there face but it will blind them...punching someones throat may not get them to drop there guard but it will stun or kill them!

Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!

 

[ed-swckf]

WOW!!!!! People actually believe this....I am sorry this just wont work!

This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!

I agree that the momentum is on the shooters side and you just cant back up that fast! Secondly if it was as easy as side stepping or back peddling BJJ wouldnt have the reputation that it does in the octagon!

Baat cham do foot work isn't so much side stepping or back peddling, its more like a center shifting yeild with a controlled fall. I base this on the premise that wing chun tends to fall rather than step. The funny thing is i notice a lot of UFC fights where practicioners of other arts do beging their avoidance of a shoot in a similar way to this, its probably similar in practice to the sprawling that Andrew Green spoke of. To say it simpley won't work based on only reading what is described in an article is just as bad as him thinking it will work based on only watching UFC. I'm not saying its some secret amazing technique that will nullify grapplers and to be honest i don't think the article was written in such a way. I feel it was an article written to look at principles of wing chun in relation to other effective arts, it gives people a starting point on which to focus if they wish to work against grapplers it doesn't give them immediate sucess and if you were entering a UFC with just that then it won't work, it needs to be trained and tested against grapplers constantly and it will probably evolve a lot to represent sprawling although using the principles of wing chun behind it.

Let me also adress a member here



If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate balance and strength that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!

Also Grapplers and people who take down train against this very type of rooted stance...I know I do!

Yeah, i can't help but feel that not all arts teach the same stance and footwork as wing chun, it would help if you understood the footwork that is being discussed before you make a comment on it. And like i said before wing chun falls rather than steps, its a controlled fall, so they also have gravity on their side. I'm not here to say that one will work and one will not, it obvious depending on the skill and effort put in to each individual that either could work and people do defy shoots and people do overcome all martial arts techniques.

You train against a rooted stance which is great and all people here are talking about is training against shoots - i'm sure you have trained things that can be easily negated by some arts and pose a huge problem to others - i prefer not to look at it as a representation of the art but rather of the individual. If a wing chun guy doesn't take the idea of a shoot to its absoloute limits then he isn't going to fair well against a shooter but that doesn't mean that with training that the principles in wing chun can't be effective against shooting - the distinction isn't the art or the technique but the individual. Taking people to the floor is very effective and not easy to stop at all, this is very evident in UFC but a fair amount of people do it although more tend not to suceed. You can get caught up in this technique beats that technique but like i say its more about how well the person is trained under pressure and how many ways they can make things work against it - what i am saying is it can work and that doesn't mean its better, more vital or unique, the article wasn't written very well in order to address people that aren't seeing it from a wing chun point of view.

Againyou show a lack of understanding as to exactly what grappling is....no matter who you fight the game plan needs to change constantly...then at the opportune moment you strike. That is how a takedown occurs...it is swift and it is set up..personally I like to rake the eyes....or kick the nuts before I take them down With a osoto gari....straight into a gata gatame...or another Shimewazza..for what you are speaking of a shoot isnt all grapplers know they have an extensive amount of throws from Judo and such...even the great Bruce Lee said that Judo was the most practical martial art!

Ok, an understanding of both martial arts and there effectiveness is important here, i think everyone can be guilty of saying or judging one arts outlook without really understanding them fully. What seems to be happening now is people are saying if you did that i'd do this and i'd win and in retort the other is saying if you did that i'd do this and you'd lose. It gets us nowhere and seems to create tension, no one can take away from the fact that grappling is effective and hard to deal with, there is no simple dead set way to nullify it but the same can be said of a lot of techniques. That said, i'm interested as to where bruce lee said that judo was the most practical and in what context.

This shifting is however not the only way to deal with this type of attack, there are other methods, which are more dependent on the level of trainng that the Wing Chun practioner has developed, but we cant give away all of our secrets

Right...now give us examples because this sounds like a cop out...maybe some evidence that they work...there is heaps of evidence that shooting/throwing works well against the defences you are talking about...also alot of evidence that grapplers beat wing chun players!

Actually it sounds like a joke, and theres also evidence that grapplers can beat bald men - don't think of people in terms of their art so much, think of them in terms of how much they put in etc. If all wing chun people were training to be in the UFC and all putting all their time into it and still losing then sure maybe the blanket statement of wing chun players would work better but as it stands very few schools that teach proper wing chun go in for UFC type stuff or even care about it from that perspective. We have other reasons and choices behind our training and that doesn't mean there is a lack of respect for grappling we just take it from a different angle. For instance my sifu - samual kwok - does a lot of joint seminars with the gracies, wing chun and bjj seminars. They are pretty extensive and show a great insight into both, my sifu is a very well respected man in wing chun worldwide but what i was hoping to illustrate by this is wing chun people are very aware of the effectiveness of grappling.

Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!

True

A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!

likewise with the baat cham do footwork

It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?

Well work the tecnique for a while and see what you come up with.

Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!

You are unbeatable and wing chun doesn't work?

To grapple effectively you need timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation.

good skills to have.

I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!

The fact is to a certain degree a reaction can be had....scraping someones eyes may not force them to grab there face but it will blind them...punching someones throat may not get them to drop there guard but it will stun or kill them!

Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!

I don't feel that you have hurt any feelings or ego on my part, it does come over that your ego is very present in your opinion however. Not necessarily a bad thing. I swear the amount of times ive been in the old discussion about wing chun vs. grappling it does get tiring, its not offensive and i think at times the points raised are good but all to often it gets silly with people saying my guns bigger than yours. Personally i hope to never use my training where as the majority of BJJ people hope to use it - its training from a very different mindset and perspective.

 

[SAVAGE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
WOW!!!!! People actually believe this....I am sorry this just wont work!

This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!

I agree that the momentum is on the shooters side and you just cant back up that fast! Secondly if it was as easy as side stepping or back peddling BJJ wouldnt have the reputation that it does in the octagon!


Baat cham do foot work isn't so much side stepping or back peddling, its more like a center shifting yeild with a controlled fall. I base this on the premise that wing chun tends to fall rather than step. The funny thing is i notice a lot of UFC fights where practicioners of other arts do beging their avoidance of a shoot in a similar way to this, its probably similar in practice to the sprawling that Andrew Green spoke of. To say it simpley won't work based on only reading what is described in an article is just as bad as him thinking it will work based on only watching UFC. I'm not saying its some secret amazing technique that will nullify grapplers and to be honest i don't think the article was written in such a way. I feel it was an article written to look at principles of wing chun in relation to other effective arts, it gives people a starting point on which to focus if they wish to work against grapplers it doesn't give them immediate sucess and if you were entering a UFC with just that then it won't work, it needs to be trained and tested against grapplers constantly and it will probably evolve a lot to represent sprawling although using the principles of wing chun behind it.

Yes i have started my journey into Yau Kun Mun...so I will have to say that I understand what the shifting yield...it is also used in Hapkido to some degree to help with the redirection of your opponents attack! It is a step away...while moving your center to allow you to sucessfully counter attack!

Even by your admission you say that it wont work till it evolves....That aticle in my opinion was not about principles it was one man saying that this technique will work...and that is dangerous..to say that untested!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Let me also adress a member here



If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate balance and strength that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!

Also Grapplers and people who take down train against this very type of rooted stance...I know I do!


Yeah, i can't help but feel that not all arts teach the same stance and footwork as wing chun, it would help if you understood the footwork that is being discussed before you make a comment on it. And like i said before wing chun falls rather than steps, its a controlled fall, so they also have gravity on their side. I'm not here to say that one will work and one will not, it obvious depending on the skill and effort put in to each individual that either could work and people do defy shoots and people do overcome all martial arts techniques.

You train against a rooted stance which is great and all people here are talking about is training against shoots - i'm sure you have trained things that can be easily negated by some arts and pose a huge problem to others - i prefer not to look at it as a representation of the art but rather of the individual. If a wing chun guy doesn't take the idea of a shoot to its absoloute limits then he isn't going to fair well against a shooter but that doesn't mean that with training that the principles in wing chun can't be effective against shooting - the distinction isn't the art or the technique but the individual. Taking people to the floor is very effective and not easy to stop at all, this is very evident in UFC but a fair amount of people do it although more tend not to suceed. You can get caught up in this technique beats that technique but like i say its more about how well the person is trained under pressure and how many ways they can make things work against it - what i am saying is it can work and that doesn't mean its better, more vital or unique, the article wasn't written very well in order to address people that aren't seeing it from a wing chun point of view.

A rooted stance is in essence all the same..grounding yourself....an example...white crane..all aspects of Goju Ryu Kata are within its forms....goju Ryu came from a Kung Fu system....so the rooted stances are not all that different!

Also if it is a controlled fall..arent you going where your opponent wants you to be...I dont know about you controlling falls...would mean losing control of the situation...because they would dominate on the ground!

I agree that you need to take the shoot to its limits you will fail against it...that is why I have no respect for this article because he hasnt taken it to its limits...he hasnt gone to where the grapplers play to test it! I am not talking about the octagon..I mean down to there dojos to fight someone of equal experience!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Againyou show a lack of understanding as to exactly what grappling is....no matter who you fight the game plan needs to change constantly...then at the opportune moment you strike. That is how a takedown occurs...it is swift and it is set up..personally I like to rake the eyes....or kick the nuts before I take them down With a osoto gari....straight into a gata gatame...or another Shimewazza..for what you are speaking of a shoot isnt all grapplers know they have an extensive amount of throws from Judo and such...even the great Bruce Lee said that Judo was the most practical martial art!


Ok, an understanding of both martial arts and there effectiveness is important here, i think everyone can be guilty of saying or judging one arts outlook without really understanding them fully. What seems to be happening now is people are saying if you did that i'd do this and i'd win and in retort the other is saying if you did that i'd do this and you'd lose. It gets us nowhere and seems to create tension, no one can take away from the fact that grappling is effective and hard to deal with, there is no simple dead set way to nullify it but the same can be said of a lot of techniques. That said, i'm interested as to where bruce lee said that judo was the most practical and in what context.

Yes a understanding of both...that a man in an article gets from simply watching UFC...that is degrading to grapplers IMHO! I never said if you do this I would do that...the fact is that its not just the shoot you need to worry about...BJJ is based heavily on Judo throws (I myself am a Judoka...not a MMAist in the sport sense...with alot of experience in standing arts, like boxing, TKD, Goju Ryu, Hapkido and lately Yau Kun Mun)

Bruce lee lost a match to a judoka....that is why in that movie with Kareem Abdul Jabba he is seen to apply a hold from Judo! I am trying to find the links..maybe I will PM them to you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbernam777
This shifting is however not the only way to deal with this type of attack, there are other methods, which are more dependent on the level of trainng that the Wing Chun practioner has developed, but we cant give away all of our secrets


Right...now give us examples because this sounds like a cop out...maybe some evidence that they work...there is heaps of evidence that shooting/throwing works well against the defences you are talking about...also alot of evidence that grapplers beat wing chun players!


Actually it sounds like a joke, and theres also evidence that grapplers can beat bald men - don't think of people in terms of their art so much, think of them in terms of how much they put in etc. If all wing chun people were training to be in the UFC and all putting all their time into it and still losing then sure maybe the blanket statement of wing chun players would work better but as it stands very few schools that teach proper wing chun go in for UFC type stuff or even care about it from that perspective. We have other reasons and choices behind our training and that doesn't mean there is a lack of respect for grappling we just take it from a different angle. For instance my sifu - samual kwok - does a lot of joint seminars with the gracies, wing chun and bjj seminars. They are pretty extensive and show a great insight into both, my sifu is a very well respected man in wing chun worldwide but what i was hoping to illustrate by this is wing chun people are very aware of the effectiveness of grappling.

actually Bald Men have a higher rate of sucess against shoots and grapplers...LOL! The article was not about individuals and the posts were not about individuals...they were about techniques..and that technique IMHO will not work! There is evidence that it does not work!

I never meant to disrespect your Sifu...he sounds like a switched on guy...now ask him if the technique in the article will work against a shot!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?


Well work the tecnique for a while and see what you come up with.

I did with the yau kun mun..guy that teaches me....every time he ended on his butt!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!

You are unbeatable and wing chun doesn't work?

I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!

The fact is to a certain degree a reaction can be had....scraping someones eyes may not force them to grab there face but it will blind them...punching someones throat may not get them to drop there guard but it will stun or kill them!

Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!


I don't feel that you have hurt any feelings or ego on my part, it does come over that your ego is very present in your opinion however. Not necessarily a bad thing. I swear the amount of times ive been in the old discussion about wing chun vs. grappling it does get tiring, its not offensive and i think at times the points raised are good but all to often it gets silly with people saying my guns bigger than yours. Personally i hope to never use my training where as the majority of BJJ people hope to use it - its training from a very different mindset and perspective.

No I dont think its ego on my part....I just like to get straight to it! I agree that the old style vs style is as old as MA itself.....and a load of crapola if you ask me...it is really the individual that makes or breaks the art!

I have been a JUdoka for 18 years...I have 0 tournaments under my belt..I dont train for sports..i train a martial art! Not all BJJ peeps train to use it...it is a sport...but they dont all walk around in tights waiting to pounce on everyone!

My post was in no way a attack on Wing Chun...but a attack on techniques that have proven time and time again to be ineffective!

I would also like to say thank you for the post and I look forward to your response!

 

[ed-swckf]

Yes i have started my journey into Yau Kun Mun...so I will have to say that I understand what the shifting yield...it is also used in Hapkido to some degree to help with the redirection of your opponents attack! It is a step away...while moving your center to allow you to sucessfully counter attack!

Even by your admission you say that it wont work till it evolves....That aticle in my opinion was not about principles it was one man saying that this technique will work...and that is dangerous..to say that untested!

Well i'd say no technique would work until you put some work into it.

A rooted stance is in essence all the same..grounding yourself....an example...white crane..all aspects of Goju Ryu Kata are within its forms....goju Ryu came from a Kung Fu system....so the rooted stances are not all that different!

Maybe in the broadest essence they are the same but from the way i see it the way the wing chun stance works with rooting is a little different to say the least, wing chun grounds itself so momentarily and is always mobile - the stance roots yes but its strength is in its mobility not stability thats why the feet are always moving hence the wing chun saying move a hand move a foot.

Also if it is a controlled fall..arent you going where your opponent wants you to be...I dont know about you controlling falls...would mean losing control of the situation...because they would dominate on the ground!

not really, its easier to show than explain this, but the fall is under control and it works because its relaxed. its harder to control someones movement when they are falling compared to when they are stepping so it actually makes it harder for the opponent. I think you may have misunderstood, you don't end up on the ground its just a principle behind the stepping.

I agree that you need to take the shoot to its limits you will fail against it...that is why I have no respect for this article because he hasnt taken it to its limits...he hasnt gone to where the grapplers play to test it! I am not talking about the octagon..I mean down to there dojos to fight someone of equal experience!

Yes but the same can be said of you saying it won't work, no ones seen him actually try his ideas out and articles can very easily portray the wrong thing, its never easy to explain what you mean in words when it comes to wing chun or other arts. Take what he says with a pinch of salt and say you'll believe it when you see it, he may have been rather myopic in his article in the sense of explaining himself fully, i'm sure it raised a million questions for you and perhaps he would answer them to a more satisfactory manner if you were in person but articles don't have that luxary. There were some intersting points in the article from a wing chun point of view but you need to take all attacks to limits and really test them not just the attcks of grapplers and even then there is no sure bet on how you will fair.

Yes a understanding of both...that a man in an article gets from simply watching UFC...that is degrading to grapplers IMHO!

I sincearly doubt that was his intention, they were only his opening words and the guy is a respected wing chun guy, he wasn't degrading grappling and i am sure he knows its value. He was more concentrating on talking about wing chun needs to treat grapplers as a real threat to the approach of wing chun, so much so that he found it worthy of writing out some ideas to look at when going up against such attacks. And perhaps they were too simple to address moderately to well trained grapplers but the ideas, simple as they were may give some sucess against the simpler opponant with a lesser grappling skill - a starting point if you will.

I never said if you do this I would do that...the fact is that its not just the shoot you need to worry about...BJJ is based heavily on Judo throws (I myself am a Judoka...not a MMAist in the sport sense...with alot of experience in standing arts, like boxing, TKD, Goju Ryu, Hapkido and lately Yau Kun Mun)

Bruce lee lost a match to a judoka....that is why in that movie with Kareem Abdul Jabba he is seen to apply a hold from Judo! I am trying to find the links..maybe I will PM them to you!

No but the discussion got dangerously close to it turning into a bit of "i'll do this if you do that" kind of thing and everyone here is hopefully fully aware of the fact BJJ and other arts are more than just the shoot but one thing at a time. I think any wing chun practicioner that is foolish enough to think that what was contained in that article would negate grapplers as a whole is in serious need of a wake up call. And i really don't think davids intention was to come across in such a way, i'll hopefully be meeting up with david next month as he's doing a few seminars here, perhaps i'll raise a question to his approach on grapplers and see how he demonstrates his ideas.

actually Bald Men have a higher rate of sucess against shoots and grapplers...LOL! The article was not about individuals and the posts were not about individuals...they were about techniques..and that technique IMHO will not work! There is evidence that it does not work!

Its always about the individual in a fight, each individual applys techniques differently and he is indeed talking about his personal individual approach to the situation and there is no evidence that it doesn't work for him.

I never meant to disrespect your Sifu...he sounds like a switched on guy...now ask him if the technique in the article will work against a shot!

You didn't disrespect him but my sifus entire approach to wing chun is different to that of peterson and guys in the wong shun leung school of thought. He could say that he couldn't make the ideas work or that he prefers a different approach based on his way of things but he couldn't tell you if peterson can work it, only peterson can do that. I do agree that if he hasn't tested it as much as he could in some serious pressure testing then its not something worthy to take on board as if it had. But like i have said i think its a simplified look at some of the problems you'll face early on when begining to train against grapplers.

I did with the yau kun mun..guy that teaches me....every time he ended on his butt!

Well either he wasn't practicing it has peterson had envisioned or you can overcome the technique, perhaps understanding and training in wing chun is vital to its sucess?

I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!

yeah well i'm sure while sucess may have been found at the gracie camp it was soon cataloged by grapplers for future reference so of course strikers would continue to worry about grapplers. The technique wouldn't make millions unless you applied a ******** marketing idea with it.

No I dont think its ego on my part....I just like to get straight to it! I agree that the old style vs style is as old as MA itself.....and a load of crapola if you ask me...it is really the individual that makes or breaks the art!

It may not be ego on your part however it may be comming off like that - just goes to show how the folly of written word being open to misinterpretation.

I have been a JUdoka for 18 years...I have 0 tournaments under my belt..I dont train for sports..i train a martial art! Not all BJJ peeps train to use it...it is a sport...but they dont all walk around in tights waiting to pounce on everyone!

do you find the training for the competitions is radically different to that of someone not interested in competition of any kind?

My post was in no way a attack on Wing Chun...but a attack on techniques that have proven time and time again to be ineffective!

don't worry about what they say, worry about what they do, the proof is in the pudding right?

I would also like to say thank you for the post and I look forward to your response!

You are welcome.

 

[SAVAGE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Yes i have started my journey into Yau Kun Mun...so I will have to say that I understand what the shifting yield...it is also used in Hapkido to some degree to help with the redirection of your opponents attack! It is a step away...while moving your center to allow you to sucessfully counter attack!

Even by your admission you say that it wont work till it evolves....That aticle in my opinion was not about principles it was one man saying that this technique will work...and that is dangerous..to say that untested!



Well i'd say no technique would work until you put some work into it.

Yes and the article speaks of no testing..just having watched UFC!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
A rooted stance is in essence all the same..grounding yourself....an example...white crane..all aspects of Goju Ryu Kata are within its forms....goju Ryu came from a Kung Fu system....so the rooted stances are not all that different!



Maybe in the broadest essence they are the same but from the way i see it the way the wing chun stance works with rooting is a little different to say the least, wing chun grounds itself so momentarily and is always mobile - the stance roots yes but its strength is in its mobility not stability thats why the feet are always moving hence the wing chun saying move a hand move a foot.

No in Goju..and TKD there is movement...it is only really grounded at the time that your feet hit the floor..but is also a moving satnce...i think all stances need to be!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Also if it is a controlled fall..arent you going where your opponent wants you to be...I dont know about you controlling falls...would mean losing control of the situation...because they would dominate on the ground!



not really, its easier to show than explain this, but the fall is under control and it works because its relaxed. its harder to control someones movement when they are falling compared to when they are stepping so it actually makes it harder for the opponent. I think you may have misunderstood, you don't end up on the ground its just a principle behind the stepping.

Sorry that is my Judoka mind..a controlled fall is hitting the ground...if by falll you mean back up then my post doesnt apply!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I agree that you need to take the shoot to its limits you will fail against it...that is why I have no respect for this article because he hasnt taken it to its limits...he hasnt gone to where the grapplers play to test it! I am not talking about the octagon..I mean down to there dojos to fight someone of equal experience!



Yes but the same can be said of you saying it won't work, no ones seen him actually try his ideas out and articles can very easily portray the wrong thing, its never easy to explain what you mean in words when it comes to wing chun or other arts. Take what he says with a pinch of salt and say you'll believe it when you see it, he may have been rather myopic in his article in the sense of explaining himself fully, i'm sure it raised a million questions for you and perhaps he would answer them to a more satisfactory manner if you were in person but articles don't have that luxary. There were some intersting points in the article from a wing chun point of view but you need to take all attacks to limits and really test them not just the attcks of grapplers and even then there is no sure bet on how you will fair.

Exactly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Yes a understanding of both...that a man in an article gets from simply watching UFC...that is degrading to grapplers IMHO!



I sincearly doubt that was his intention, they were only his opening words and the guy is a respected wing chun guy, he wasn't degrading grappling and i am sure he knows its value. He was more concentrating on talking about wing chun needs to treat grapplers as a real threat to the approach of wing chun, so much so that he found it worthy of writing out some ideas to look at when going up against such attacks. And perhaps they were too simple to address moderately to well trained grapplers but the ideas, simple as they were may give some sucess against the simpler opponant with a lesser grappling skill - a starting point if you will.

that may be the case...but the grapplers get alot of stick from the strikers as well...so we do tend to get a bit defensive!

As a starting point I agree.....but he says that it is how to deal with a shoot...that I disagree...the only documented technique that I have seen that is effective are kness (a reasonable amount of luck is required) and the sprawl!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I never said if you do this I would do that...the fact is that its not just the shoot you need to worry about...BJJ is based heavily on Judo throws (I myself am a Judoka...not a MMAist in the sport sense...with alot of experience in standing arts, like boxing, TKD, Goju Ryu, Hapkido and lately Yau Kun Mun)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE

Bruce lee lost a match to a judoka....that is why in that movie with Kareem Abdul Jabba he is seen to apply a hold from Judo! I am trying to find the links..maybe I will PM them to you!



No but the discussion got dangerously close to it turning into a bit of "i'll do this if you do that" kind of thing and everyone here is hopefully fully aware of the fact BJJ and other arts are more than just the shoot but one thing at a time. I think any wing chun practicioner that is foolish enough to think that what was contained in that article would negate grapplers as a whole is in serious need of a wake up call. And i really don't think davids intention was to come across in such a way, i'll hopefully be meeting up with david next month as he's doing a few seminars here, perhaps i'll raise a question to his approach on grapplers and see how he demonstrates his ideas.

I hope you do and i hope that you let us know what he meant...a video would be nice...if you can swing it! Becasue if you have found a counter..we need to find a counter...counter! LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
actually Bald Men have a higher rate of sucess against shoots and grapplers...LOL! The article was not about individuals and the posts were not about individuals...they were about techniques..and that technique IMHO will not work! There is evidence that it does not work!


Its always about the individual in a fight, each individual applys techniques differently and he is indeed talking about his personal individual approach to the situation and there is no evidence that it doesn't work for him.

Agreed! But no where in that article did he say.."it works for me!" He said it works!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I never meant to disrespect your Sifu...he sounds like a switched on guy...now ask him if the technique in the article will work against a shot!

You didn't disrespect him but my sifus entire approach to wing chun is different to that of peterson and guys in the wong shun leung school of thought. He could say that he couldn't make the ideas work or that he prefers a different approach based on his way of things but he couldn't tell you if peterson can work it, only peterson can do that. I do agree that if he hasn't tested it as much as he could in some serious pressure testing then its not something worthy to take on board as if it had. But like i have said i think its a simplified look at some of the problems you'll face early on when begining to train against grapplers.

That is all I am saying is that to make a statement like that..on a Idea...is dangerous..test first...article later!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I did with the yau kun mun..guy that teaches me....every time he ended on his butt!


Well either he wasn't practicing it has peterson had envisioned or you can overcome the technique, perhaps understanding and training in wing chun is vital to its sucess?

True..I suppose that because I had some idea of what he was doing I may have taken measures to counter...but in essence I just struck..and shot..and he couldnt move back quick enough!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!


yeah well i'm sure while sucess may have been found at the gracie camp it was soon cataloged by grapplers for future reference so of course strikers would continue to worry about grapplers. The technique wouldn't make millions unless you applied a ******** marketing idea with it.

I was of course being sarcastic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
No I dont think its ego on my part....I just like to get straight to it! I agree that the old style vs style is as old as MA itself.....and a load of crapola if you ask me...it is really the individual that makes or breaks the art!


It may not be ego on your part however it may be comming off like that - just goes to show how the folly of written word being open to misinterpretation.

Point!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I have been a JUdoka for 18 years...I have 0 tournaments under my belt..I dont train for sports..i train a martial art! Not all BJJ peeps train to use it...it is a sport...but they dont all walk around in tights waiting to pounce on everyone!


do you find the training for the competitions is radically different to that of someone not interested in competition of any kind?

No the training is physically the same...the mind set isnt....the excecution isnt...a tippy tappy point fighter..would pull his strike in real live altercations..and wouldnt be programmed to go for kill points...or happy points..whatever makes you fell better about kicking someone in the nuts...or gouging out a eye...you excecute how you train!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
My post was in no way a attack on Wing Chun...but a attack on techniques that have proven time and time again to be ineffective!



don't worry about what they say, worry about what they do, the proof is in the pudding right?

Exactlty....no proof...no pudding!

 

[bcbernam777]

If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate balance and strength that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!

Actually the "root" that I am talking about is dfferent than mere balance and strength Savage and is very different than any other martial art, and with due respect to you and Andrew Green, you are doing the exact same thing that you say David Peterson is doing, You say that he is giving information based on second hand information, not information based on personal experiance, have you studied Wing Chun or do you simply know everything about it by osmosis. And if your facts are based on the "yeah I have taken on wing chun guys and kicked the crap out of them" Then IU can also say to you that I have done like wise with grapplers, ah but then you will say to me, "then they obviously wheren't properly trained grapplers" and then I will say to you, "ahh but the you obviously came up aginast badly trained WC practicioners" to which you reply ........ and so it goes on and on and on, until the crap fight goes on and on with my style's bigger than your style, with all the mentality of a couple of school kids in a playground. If you dont think WC has an answer to a grappler, then I can stand here all day, show you facts figures, I can draw diagrams, I can explain to you the conceptual baisis as well as the experiancial basis for why this is an errounous idea, and I can do this from sun up to sun down, and you will still disagree with me, and I know you will because you have a preset idea, and with all due respect but I find that people such as yourself, dont change their opinions, rarely if ever. The bare facts are

A) you dont know wing chun

B) I doubt you have studied wing chun

C) you are in the camp with the majority of UFC afficienados you claim that TCM's are generally crap.

D) I doubt you could have a decent paradigm shift.



here are the facts as I see them:

A) I have no doubt as to the reality that a properly trained grappler, can be a worthy and difficuolt opponao9nt, as well as any one who has properly trained (in most arts) can be a formidible and dangerous oponant.

B) There are a lot of McDojo Wing Chun schools who have done serious damage to the credibility and the perception of Wing Chun esp. in the last 10-15 years

C) In the final analysis it does not matter which system you learn, if you are not willing to train your little gluteous Maximus off in a consistant way, then it doesnt matter how good your system is, you will never ever maximise its full potential. In translation "It comes down to the man"

D) If people wont train against other stylists then they will not have the sufficient experiance to learn how to deal with multiple situations.

E) If you dont want to believe that WC has an answer to the problem then that aint no skin off my nose, as the saying goes "I know my opponants skill but he doesn't know mine" so that would put me at the advantage.

I hope there wasn't too much sugar with that.

 

[ed-swckf]

Yes and the article speaks of no testing..just having watched UFC!

It shopuldn't need saying thats what martial arts are about, kung fu is hard work.

No in Goju..and TKD there is movement...it is only really grounded at the time that your feet hit the floor..but is also a moving satnce...i think all stances need to be!

I know for a fact the movement and stance work in TKD is drastically different to that of wing chun.

Sorry that is my Judoka mind..a controlled fall is hitting the ground...if by falll you mean back up then my post doesnt apply!

ok then my point stands.

I hope you do and i hope that you let us know what he meant...a video would be nice...if you can swing it! Becasue if you have found a counter..we need to find a counter...counter! LOL!

I will try and get a video but i'm thinking that it won't warrant you finding a counter so much but perhaps just appreciate his approach wasn't so arrogant and might actually have some worth.

Agreed! But no where in that article did he say.."it works for me!" He said it works!

Thats somewhat pedantic and perhaps he could have written it better but when i say something works in wing chun i usually mean it works for me and perhaps it should be made more clear but wing chun is a completely personalised style.

That is all I am saying is that to make a statement like that..on a Idea...is dangerous..test first...article later!

But you'd be a fool not to test it, the article is directed toward wing cun people and they should test it thats the point of putting an idea out there, if no one got anything from it then it was a waste if a few people just take a few elements and priciples from the idea then its not a waste. If we need to start putting disclaimers on ideas that people share because people don't realise that it always need working and fitting to you personally then we are in very sad times.

True..I suppose that because I had some idea of what he was doing I may have taken measures to counter...but in essence I just struck..and shot..and he couldnt move back quick enough!

its a skill that would need a lot of training.

I was of course being sarcastic!

About what part? respecting wing chun or making millions?

Exactlty....no proof...no pudding!

So petersons approach remains to be proved or disproved

 

[7starmantis]

If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?

I want to point out that I have seen it make its way into competitive grappling. I need to clearify that I dont mean to speak of static or specific techniques but rather principled "guidlines" if you will. The classic sprawl is being used much much differently than it was 10 years ago. Also let me say I'm not defending the article, I have allready expressed my views of its shortcomings, I'm refering to that type of technique much like the one I described in my post above.

This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!

Lets not start off jumping to conclusions, whether this guy has faced qualified grapplers or not is simply not stated. It would appear he hasn't by the static explination he gave, but then he was also speaking to WC people who would take what he says and go train it, test it, adapt it, and apply it.

Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!

Wow, now your making the same mistake your criticizing the article for making. Your assumption that I was discussing what I saw and not what I have experienced is faulty and only seems to prove your unwillingness to accept differing points of view. A shoot is very different than a tackle, your absolutely correct....whats your point?

A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!

Your taking keywords of mine and using them to mean something other than what I'm saying. By using the word "lunging" I meant to describe the action of the opponent coming in...I'll try and remember to use the word "shooting" for further refrence. It seems as if you didn't even read what I posted. I'm not in any way speaking of back-peddling. In fact, I said that type of movement would get you single legged. I think I understand what you are refering to as "the 8 points of unbalancing" maybe you could describe it a bit more, but we train the majority of our fighting to unbalance the opponent. Thats probably one of our most trained principles. I understand the effectiveness of shooting as I train in it and against it consistently. What I'm saying is that its simply not un-defendable. A well planned, well trained technique is still not so strong it cannot be defended against. It seems your unwilling to accept that others may have skill equal to or better than yours and thus your techniques might not work.

It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?

You should really re-read my posts a bit. I explained the point of the sprawl is not just simply the technique of the feet but also the dropping the weight on top of the opponent and such. The thing which makes this type of "sprawl" or "shoot defense" effective is creating contact and manipulating the shooting opponents balance quickly on in the engagement. Without that key element it is simply back-peddling. The sprawl (footwork) is designed to get your legs out of the danger area, that must be adheared to even in this type of defense.

Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!

To grapple effectively you need timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation.

These buddies of yours are they at the same level as you...have they been training in BJJ as long as you h ave been training in Wing Chun...what are the variables!

First, lets clear a few things up. Your assumptions are running wild.

1. I am not a "striker".
2. I have no desire or need to have your belief.
3. I have no intrest in "making millions" or selling any one technique as 100% effective (unlike your amazing shooting skills)
4. I do not train in Wing Chun

Ok, not that thats out of the way, lets address your post. Proof of what exactly? Proof of me defending a takedown? If your so blinded by your own skill that you seriously believe its imposible to defend a takedown, you need to get out more. I'm not trying to be nasty either, but it seems your simply set on the belief that takedowns cannot be defended against.

Your correct about whats needed to grapple effectively...thats why I posted it....again I'm missing your point. :idunno:

As I posted above, I'm not a WC person, but all the grappling partners I train with have been training much longer than myself. I have little intrest in training with someone with less experience than myself. All of them are actively competing or have in the past. In fact, I just met a new training partner who even fought some undercard UFC many years ago. Most are at least my size (6' 2" 207 lbs) or larger.

You seem to think that my explaining a takedown defense is me saying I never get taken down, thats not it at all. Do you mean to say you never miss a takedown you attempt? It seems your only recourse to someone avoiding a takedown is they must have been more skilled than the shooter....isn't that allwasy the case? Your too stuck on technique vs technique....its much more about the fighter and their training methods.
Please re-read my post, I said I use a technique much like the one in the article, but a bit different.

I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!

Wow, once again....read my posts. I spoke of partial truths and oversimplifications. I said nothing of raw ineffectiveness. Your twisting my words to try and discount me, thats disengenuous at best.

The fact is to a certain degree a reaction can be had....scraping someones eyes may not force them to grab there face but it will blind them...punching someones throat may not get them to drop there guard but it will stun or kill them!

To rely so heavily on an absolute in a fight is simply not the way I choose to do it. If the "setup" does indeed get a reaction I will use it....if the setup does not get a reaction I will have allready passed it and done something else. What if you punch someones throat and it doesn't stun or kill them? Thats all I'm saying....you must not rely so heavily on static techniques. If your shooting is simply incapable of being defended against, why hasn't it made its way into competitive grappling? I see many, many takedowns and shoots defended against in everyday training and in the UFC (for what its worth).

Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!

You have not offended me or hurt my feelings (I have very little ego left). If I have done either to you I appologize, it is not what was intended. I really enjoy these types of discussion, I just want us to be on the same plane when discussing them.


One more thing.....

I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!

So if I have effectively used a technique against grapplers (regardless of their training) then strikers never need to worry about grapplers again and I'm a millionaire? You have got to be kidding me. You just all over the map with this one. I dont evne understand what point your trying to make unless its that strikers are completely and totaly ineffective and defensless against grapplers. Is that what your trying to get across? Do you seriously think that in a fight one person will never get a technique to execute? It almost seems like you have not ever fought....do you normally fight in your training or do you mainly train drills and such?

7sm

 

[SAVAGE]

MR STARMANTIS777

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Green
If this method is effective why do you suppose it hasn't found it's way into competitve grappling?


I want to point out that I have seen it make its way into competitive grappling. I need to clearify that I dont mean to speak of static or specific techniques but rather principled "guidlines" if you will. The classic sprawl is being used much much differently than it was 10 years ago. Also let me say I'm not defending the article, I have allready expressed my views of its shortcomings, I'm refering to that type of technique much like the one I described in my post above.

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
This article was written by a man who only "saw" UFC and I doubt has faced any type of qualified grappler!

Lets not start off jumping to conclusions, whether this guy has faced qualified grapplers or not is simply not stated. It would appear he hasn't by the static explination he gave, but then he was also speaking to WC people who would take what he says and go train it,

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

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Agreed...but this is the same tone the article is written in! By what some one saw..and not what one has experienced..a shoot is very different to a tackle!

Wow, now your making the same mistake your criticizing the article for making. Your assumption that I was discussing what I saw and not what I have experienced is faulty and only seems to prove your unwillingness to accept differing points of view. A shoot is very different than a tackle, your absolutely correct....whats your point?

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
A shoot is not a lunge...it is a well planned well trained technique..also if you understand the 8 points of unbalancing...this type of back peddling only assists in standing throws!

Your taking keywords of mine and using them to mean something other than what I'm saying. By using the word "lunging" I meant to describe the action of the opponent coming in...I'll try and remember to use the word "shooting" for further refrence. It seems as if you didn't even read what I posted. I'm not in any way speaking of back-peddling. In fact, I said that type of movement would get you single legged. I think I understand what you are refering to as "the 8 points of unbalancing" maybe you could describe it a bit more, but we train the majority of our fighting to unbalance the opponent. Thats probably one of our most trained principles. I understand the effectiveness of shooting as I train in it and against it consistently. What I'm saying is that its simply not un-defendable. A well planned, well trained technique is still not so strong it cannot be defended against. It seems your unwilling to accept that others may have skill equal to or better than yours and thus your techniques might not work.

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!

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
It is like no type of sprawl I ever heard of...perhaps you would care to elaborate on the type of sprawl you had in mind?

You should really re-read my posts a bit. I explained the point of the sprawl is not just simply the technique of the feet but also the dropping the weight on top of the opponent and such. The thing which makes this type of "sprawl" or "shoot defense" effective is creating contact and manipulating the shooting opponents balance quickly on in the engagement. Without that key element it is simply back-peddling. The sprawl (footwork) is designed to get your legs out of the danger area, that must be adheared to even in this type of defense.

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Perhaps a little proof of this...then you could sell it and make millions...I am sorry but every striker says this about takedown defence..we have yet to see it work...yet you say you do it regullarly...I am not trying to be nasty..I just dont believe you!

To grapple effectively you need timing, skill, patience, feel, and the ability or willingness to adapt it to any situation.

These buddies of yours are they at the same level as you...have they been training in BJJ as long as you h ave been training in Wing Chun...what are the variables!


First, lets clear a few things up. Your assumptions are running wild.

1. I am not a "striker".
2. I have no desire or need to have your belief.
3. I have no intrest in "making millions" or selling any one technique as 100% effective (unlike your amazing shooting skills)
4. I do not train in Wing Chun

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!

I dont have amazing shooting skills....like Mr Peterson doesnt have a amazing tackling the tackler technique...at least not pointed out in that article!

Ok, not that thats out of the way, lets address your post. Proof of what exactly? Proof of me defending a takedown? If your so blinded by your own skill that you seriously believe its imposible to defend a takedown, you need to get out more. I'm not trying to be nasty either, but it seems your simply set on the belief that takedowns cannot be defended against.

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!

You seem to think that my explaining a takedown defense is me saying I never get taken down, thats not it at all. Do you mean to say you never miss a takedown you attempt? It seems your only recourse to someone avoiding a takedown is they must have been more skilled than the shooter....isn't that allwasy the case? Your too stuck on technique vs technique....its much more about the fighter and their training methods.
Please re-read my post, I said I use a technique much like the one in the article, but a bit different.

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I agree that it is presented in an over simplified manner...but if it is as ineffective as you say...why does wing chun or even you still train for it!

Wow, once again....read my posts. I spoke of partial truths and oversimplifications. I said nothing of raw ineffectiveness. Your twisting my words to try and discount me, thats disengenuous at best.

Re read the post....just calling it how I see it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Once again it is not my intention to offend anyone...but I give my opinion straight with no sugar..and this is what I think..I apologise in advance for anyone who feels like I have hurt there ego or feelings!


You have not offended me or hurt my feelings (I have very little ego left). If I have done either to you I appologize, it is not what was intended. I really enjoy these types of discussion, I just want us to be on the same plane when discussing them.

none taken...I like the honest reactin I have received from the three of you guys and mean no disrespect this is a open free discussion..and I hope we all walk away from here still in good terms....no ***** footing around just a honest frank discussion...thanks!

One more thing.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I am very beatable my freind....my ego is not that inflated...he said that he has used it effectively against grapplers (even those of the gracie camp)..if this was the case then strikers need never worry about grapplers again and the tech would make him millions! I have respect for Wing Chun...I just feel that the technique wouldnt work! There are things in hapkido that I think are useless..like uniform techniques etc....but its still there!

So if I have effectively used a technique against grapplers (regardless of their training) then strikers never need to worry about grapplers again and I'm a millionaire? You have got to be kidding me. You just all over the map with this one. I dont evne understand what point your trying to make unless its that strikers are completely and totaly ineffective and defensless against grapplers. Is that what your trying to get across? Do you seriously think that in a fight one person will never get a technique to execute? It almost seems like you have not ever fought....do you normally fight in your training or do you mainly train drills and such?

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!

Mr ED-SWCKF

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Yes and the article speaks of no testing..just having watched UFC!


It shopuldn't need saying thats what martial arts are about, kung fu is hard work.

All MA is hard work!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
No in Goju..and TKD there is movement...it is only really grounded at the time that your feet hit the floor..but is also a moving satnce...i think all stances need to be!


I know for a fact the movement and stance work in TKD is drastically different to that of wing chun.

really even though it is just a variation of shotokan which comes from NAHA TE...which comes from Kung Fu!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Sorry that is my Judoka mind..a controlled fall is hitting the ground...if by falll you mean back up then my post doesnt apply!


ok then my point stands.

Yes it does!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I hope you do and i hope that you let us know what he meant...a video would be nice...if you can swing it! Becasue if you have found a counter..we need to find a counter...counter! LOL!


I will try and get a video but i'm thinking that it won't warrant you finding a counter so much but perhaps just appreciate his approach wasn't so arrogant and might actually have some worth.

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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Agreed! But no where in that article did he say.."it works for me!" He said it works!


Thats somewhat pedantic and perhaps he could have written it better but when i say something works in wing chun i usually mean it works for me and perhaps it should be made more clear but wing chun is a completely personalised style.

Well it was abroad sweeping statement....people should be more clear in there writings (especially me)!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
That is all I am saying is that to make a statement like that..on a Idea...is dangerous..test first...article later!


But you'd be a fool not to test it, the article is directed toward wing cun people and they should test it thats the point of putting an idea out there, if no one got anything from it then it was a waste if a few people just take a few elements and priciples from the idea then its not a waste. If we need to start putting disclaimers on ideas that people share because people don't realise that it always need working and fitting to you personally then we are in very sad times.

Amen...but it would clear alot of stuff up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
True..I suppose that because I had some idea of what he was doing I may have taken measures to counter...but in essence I just struck..and shot..and he couldnt move back quick enough!


its a skill that would need a lot of training.

As with everything else! I dont get your meaning are you saying that the man that teaches me Yau Kung Mun hasnt trained in this apparently well practiced stepping movement!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
I was of course being sarcastic!


About what part? respecting wing chun or making millions?

The Millions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
Exactlty....no proof...no pudding!


So petersons approach remains to be proved or disproved

Exactly on paper it sounds ineffective...but if its proven to work...I will learn it...i am not that bull headed!

Mr bcbernam777

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAVAGE
If wing Chun was the only art that taught rooted fighting stances..this argument may fly...but all MA teach this type of stance...to give you the ultimate balance and strength that you can achieve in a stance....but with one leg in the air I doubt your chances. A stance cannot defy gravity..and someone taking you to the ground has gravity on his side!




Actually the "root" that I am talking about is dfferent than mere balance and strength Savage and is very different than any other martial art, and with due respect to you and Andrew Green, you are doing the exact same thing that you say David Peterson is doing, You say that he is giving information based on second hand information, not information based on personal experiance, have you studied Wing Chun or do you simply know everything about it by osmosis. And if your facts are based on the "yeah I have taken on wing chun guys and kicked the crap out of them" Then IU can also say to you that I have done like wise with grapplers, ah but then you will say to me, "then they obviously wheren't properly trained grapplers" and then I will say to you, "ahh but the you obviously came up aginast badly trained WC practicioners" to which you reply ........ and so it goes on and on and on, until the crap fight goes on and on with my style's bigger than your style, with all the mentality of a couple of school kids in a playground. If you dont think WC has an answer to a grappler, then I can stand here all day, show you facts figures, I can draw diagrams, I can explain to you the conceptual baisis as well as the experiancial basis for why this is an errounous idea, and I can do this from sun up to sun down, and you will still disagree with me, and I know you will because you have a preset idea, and with all due respect but I find that people such as yourself, dont change their opinions, rarely if ever.

I would actually enjoy soem facts and figures and drawings as well....but as yet I have asked for proof and received NADA!

this is not about if you do this then I would do that...it is about one technique...the one laid out by peterson...that I feel would not work at all!

I do study a chinese MA....

People like myself....HMMMMMM.....what type of people is that exactly? thats a bit broad.....I would change my mind if you could back up what you say with facts...not what Sifu said type things...but things that are proven to work...and if that means that I am one ofthose type of people that need evidence before changing my mind....than yeah I am one of those type of people!


Now lets examine some bare facts;

A) you dont know wing chun

B) I doubt you have studied wing chun

I learn Yau Kung Mun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yau_Kung_Mun

C) you are in the camp with the majority of UFC afficienados you claim that TCM's are generally crap.

Well if i thought TCM was crap I wouldnt be trainning in one would I...I also train in Boxing, Hapkido, I did some TKD and Goju Ryu Karate...my grappling art is Judo!

Traditional enough...oh yeah and I dont learn at a MMA studio..I learn whole systems!

D) I doubt you could have a decent paradigm shift.

Well you facts thus far have been wrong...if this is a example of FACTS, and yes you did use the term bare facts...then I wonder how I am supposed to have this shift...tell me how you came about these facts about me...the same way you will come up with facts about this tachnique...or the same way you had facts to label me and my people...hmmmmm!

here are the facts as I see them:

AHHHHH more facts to consider...lets hope you did a bit more research into these!

A) I have no doubt as to the reality that a properly trained grappler, can be a worthy and difficuolt opponao9nt, as well as any one who has properly trained (in most arts) can be a formidible and dangerous oponant.

Agreed it does come down to training but you are turning this into a art thing...I am only talking about one technique the one laid out by patterson...whats your point here?

C) In the final analysis it does not matter which system you learn, if you are not willing to train your little gluteous Maximus off in a consistant way, then it doesnt matter how good your system is, you will never ever maximise its full potential. In translation "It comes down to the man"

True...but how does thsi apply to peterson saying his wing chun technique will work against a shoot....he didnt say that he could make it work...he said it is wintg chuns answer to the shoot! Once again...whats your point in relation to the article..I cant see it!

D) If people wont train against other stylists then they will not have the sufficient experiance to learn how to deal with multiple situations.

Yes and Peterson hasnt trained against a opponent he said from what he saw...that is a dangerous thing to do...some wing chun guy is gonna read it..and get himself speared to the floor..I believe it wasnt properly researched by the way the article was presented!

E) If you dont want to believe that WC has an answer to the problem then that aint no skin off my nose, as the saying goes "I know my opponants skill but he doesn't know mine" so that would put me at the advantage.

How are you ever supposed to know your opponents skill, unless he is a training partner...once again how does this apply to the technique in the article.....I dont understand this!

I hope there wasn't too much sugar with that.

Just about as much as I gave!

 

[bcbernam777]

Mr bcbernam777



I would actually enjoy soem facts and figures and drawings as well....but as yet I have asked for proof and received NADA!

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

this is not about if you do this then I would do that...it is about one technique...the one laid out by peterson...that I feel would not work at all!

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

I do study a chinese MA....

Yes but not Wing Chun

People like myself....HMMMMMM.....what type of people is that exactly? thats a bit broad.....I would change my mind if you could back up what you say with facts...not what Sifu said type things...but things that are proven to work...and if that means that I am one ofthose type of people that need evidence before changing my mind....than yeah I am one of those type of people!

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.

Now lets examine some bare facts;



I learn Yau Kung Mun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yau_Kung_Mun

Thats nice

Well if i thought TCM was crap I wouldnt be trainning in one would I...I also train in Boxing, Hapkido, I did some TKD and Goju Ryu Karate...my grappling art is Judo!

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

Traditional enough...oh yeah and I dont learn at a MMA studio..I learn whole systems!

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

Well you facts thus far have been wrong...if this is a example of FACTS, and yes you did use the term bare facts...then I wonder how I am supposed to have this shift...tell me how you came about these facts about me...the same way you will come up with facts about this tachnique...or the same way you had facts to label me and my people...hmmmmm!

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.

AHHHHH more facts to consider...lets hope you did a bit more research into these!

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

Agreed it does come down to training but you are turning this into a art thing...I am only talking about one technique the one laid out by patterson...whats your point here?

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.

True...but how does thsi apply to peterson saying his wing chun technique will work against a shoot....he didnt say that he could make it work...he said it is wintg chuns answer to the shoot! Once again...whats your point in relation to the article..I cant see 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.

Yes and Peterson hasnt trained against a opponent he said from what he saw...that is a dangerous thing to do...some wing chun guy is gonna read it..and get himself speared to the floor..I believe it wasnt properly researched by the way the article was presented!

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

How are you ever supposed to know your opponents skill, unless he is a training partner...once again how does this apply to the technique in the article.....I dont understand this!

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.

Just about as much as I gave!

I am glad I could oblige

 

[ed-swckf]

Mr ED-SWCKF



All MA is hard work!

Yeah i was talking more about a literal translation.

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.

Yes it does!

I'm glad you accept it.

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.

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.

Amen...but it would clear alot of stuff up!

yup.

As with everything else! I dont get your meaning are you saying that the man that teaches me Yau Kung Mun hasnt trained in this apparently well practiced stepping movement!

I'm saying he would need to train that technique a lot as you have a lot of experience in your training and this yau kung mun chap isn't a wing chun guy either is he? So it would take him a while to train it based on those things.

The Millions!

Thank god!

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?