# Let's discuss the Xu Xiaodong vs Ding Hao fight.



## Marnetmar (Mar 23, 2018)

The full fight video:






A very fair analysis in my mind:


----------



## Poppity (Mar 23, 2018)

ok, I will have a go, my view...It’s one fight. 

A highly publicised fight, but between some random MMA guy and some random Wing Chun guy.  The MMA guy is using a different bag of mixed arts, to most of the bandwagon MMA tough-typers who will say he represents them.  But that’s fine, most people like to be associated with a victory, even if its got nothing to do with them.

The Wing Chun guy is not from my lineage or Kwoon, he does not represent us, even if he won, he would not be representing us and most of what he does in the video is different to how we apply.  I am not saying our way is better, only that its different to a point which makes the art appear unconnected to what I see.  If he had learnt with us and was representing us, I would clearly feel differently….

….so I’m kind left with… some guy won a fight once, and its youtube.  I don’t think it proves any more or less than that.


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

No, this is not just some random MMA guy.  This is Xu Xiao Dong.  He is a Chinese MMA guy that has made a point of trash-talking traditional martial arts in China and challenging  them to prove him wrong.  He also easily handled a supposed "Tai Chi Master" in another video.  He has ticked off enough of the Chinese people and government that he went into hiding for awhile  So this  is not just one fight.  No "traditional" art has yet given Xu any kind of difficulty.  Of course, people will argue that he hand picks the people he is willing to meet on camera, and that may be true!  You don't seem him going up against San Da fighters.  He purposely only meets people that are doing something very "traditional", because that is his thing.....to show that "traditional" arts don't work!   And people on other forums have said that the Wing Chun guy is a "fake" and a "beginner" and "just learned on youtube" and all kinds of other excuses.  But the fact is the Wing Chun guy is doing pretty typical "classical" Wing Chun.  And any Wing Chun guy that hasn't "modernized" his training or cross-trained to a large extent in something else very likely wouldn't have looked much different or done any better.  And do you think the people that have a vested interested in proving Xu wrong would put a  "scrub" up against him just to continue to embarrass TCMA? This is the "classic"....very linear....charge up the middle...dominate the centerline....and chain punch...Wing Chun.  "Its all about the punch!"    And that kind of strategy just doesn't work as well in a modern fighting context as it used to!


----------



## Poppity (Mar 23, 2018)

I hear what you are saying.. but Xu Xiao Dong is still just some guy.  The same as Josh Rogan is just some guy or any other guy who likes to say that TMA is no good, they are entitled to their opinions.  I think its generally accepted that the Tai Chi guy Dong went up again had a bit of a shady past as far as the quality of his Tai Chi, I'm not qualified to say...

but I'll say this for Xu Xiao Dong he's a good business man with a gym to promote.  I think it would be naïve to imagine he is not doing any research into his opponents before hand and carefully picking opponents whose skill is overshadowed by the long stretch of an overbearing confidence... as far as being a man of mystery on the run from the Chinese Government, I find that hard to accept as he is doing their dirty work, publicly degrading the Southern Arts of Kung Fu and leaving the nationally promoted Sanda or Wushu well enough alone....  maybe soon he will fight one of those guys, lose and retire with a big cheque. Who knows...

The art I study is traditional, but the front facing charge up the centre line (or however people apply the term) is not applied at our school in that manner. I appreciate that puts me at odds with some wing chun practitioners, but not all....


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

***Disclaimer: I have practiced Wing Chun on a full time basis (30 hours a week) since I was 13. I also train full time in Shaolin, Tai Chi, and BJJ. I love Wing Chun!***

That video was a perfect representation of the limitations of most styles of Wing Chun. The most identifiable problematic areas are:

- Lack of mobile footwork
- Lack of head movement
- Lack of body strength
- Lack of overall body conditioning
- Lack of takedown defence
- Lack of ground fighting ability
- Lack of punching power
- Lack of diversity of attacks
- Lack of positional skills
- Lack of fluidity

Unfortunately this is an exact representation of 95% of the Wing Chun out there. Let's be realistic and stop kidding ourselves. I LOVE Wing Chun, but I hate how it is. A bunch of unrealistic patty cake for the most part. It has potential but only if one can break free of the classical chains it binds people by. How can one address the previously stated limitations? KPM has done an amazing job of incorporating Boxing training methods, strikes, and footwork into his Wing Chun. My sifu adjusted that which needed to be adjusted for the system to actually work. I have further adjusted the system to what I find practical based on my experience. How can one transform their Wing Chun into something practical? Let's examine the previously stated problematic areas.

- Lack of mobile footwork
- Lack of head movement

These are more of a result of Chinese Medicinal Voodoo nonsense. The belief was that by holding your spine straight and your chin up, your "Qi" could flow better through your body. This is obvious quackery. Yes, for Wing Chun to work, the shoulders must be relaxed (for the most part). The chin should not be held up like it was clearly done in the video. The Wing Chun practitioner must adopt realistic head movement if he wants to be a good fighter. Bobbing, weaving, slipping, these are all skills that should be added, if they are not present. Holding your head still like a statue invites trouble. The footwork needs to be freed from any classical limitation or fixed position. Movement should be free in all directions.

- Lack of body strength
- Lack of overall body conditioning

This is a huge issue. A majority of Wing Chun practitioners still believe in the ridiculous notion that "you don't have to be strong". That is utter nonsense. No, you do not have to be stronger than your opponent. Yes, YOU have to be strong. You have to be able to move YOUR body in a way that is efficient. You should be lifting weights, you should be skipping, you should be running, you should be working out daily. Conditioning should be exactly like a boxer or MMA fighter. You need abs of steel, you need arms like iron, you need to be in amazing shape (less than 10% body fat.) if you have a huge gut, then that's YOUR fault. It's not your "Qi" stored in there.

- Lack of takedown defence
- Lack of ground fighting ability

I understand that Wing Chun prefers simplicity, but for heavens sake please crosstrain or at least learn some basic mount and side mount escapes. Do yourself a favour and go to a BJJ school for just 5 classes. Just 5 classes. Learn some fundamental escapes. Incorporate them. You're not going to die. Please do it for the sake of Wing Chun. Also, Wing Chun places such a heavy emphasis on stance, it's rediculous that the man could be thrown to the ground so easily.

- Lack of punching power
- Lack of diversity of attacks

Some Wing Chun schools suggest that rotating your hips and shoulders when you strike is a bad thing. Watch the video. Chunner unleashes a fury of Ip Man 2 style chain punches to MMA mans face. Nothing freaking happens. If your style of Wing Chun advocates not turning your hips and shoulders when you strike, I would suggest you go to a boxing gym, learn to put your whole body behind the strike, learn to rotate and deliver maximum power with each Wing Chun punch. Your punches shouldn't be that different in terms of body rotation than a boxer. If they are, there's probably no power or snap to them. Wing Chuns diversity in attacks could be so much more that a single straight punch. The punch can be delivered from multiple angles. Practice punching from different areas to different targets, all while rotating your hips and shoulders. Hit a heavy bag (200lbs or so). Make it swing, dig deep into it and practice punishing it. Don't hold back. It's only this way that you'll develop real punching power.

- Lack of positional skills
- Lack of fluidity

Spar. SPAR HARD. SPAR HARD OFTEN. Then spar more.

In summary:
- Incorporate head movement and diverse footwork methods (Boxing)

- Workout and run. Your body fat should be under 10%. (Bodybuilding / Powerlifting)

- Learn real takedown defence and grappling skills (BJJ)

- Learn how put your body behind your strikes by rotating. Hit the heavy bag as hard as possible often (Boxing)

- Spar hard often

I love Wing Chun. Let's move forward. It's time for Wing Chun to open the windows and let the fresh air in. The revolution has started. We can fix what was given to us broken. I was fortunate. My Sifu had the fortune of studying under many of Yip Mans students. I have the privilage of learning from him a Wing Chun system that was adjusted to his experiences, and not passed down simply for the sake of tradition. Adapt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> - Lack of mobile footwork.


In another "WC footwork" thread, some people believe that to stand in YZKYM is to train the footwork.



DanT said:


> - Lack of head movement


If you can hide your

- body behind your shield, you don't need any body movement.
- head behind your "rhino guard (or double Tan Shou)", you don't need any head movement.






When you have to use head movement, you may allow your opponent's fist to be too close to your head. That's not a good strategy. IMO, to fully utilize the potential of the WC Tan Shou can be more effective than to learn the boxing head move.

All you need to do is to send your

- left Tan Shou between your opponent's head and his right arm.
- right Tan Shou between your opponent's head and his left arm.







After that, you may just need to add the "diagonal cut" throw and 'side mount" ground skill into your WC system. You will then have a pretty complete package.


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

Excellent post DanT!   I agree 100%.  I've said some of the same things recently on the facebook Wing Chun forum and you'd be surprised at the amount of crap I got in response!  Wing Chun is evolving.  A distinct difference is developing between "classical" Wing Chun and a more modernized version that is beginning to incorporate many "boxing-like" elements.  But many people are unwilling to admit that, even to themselves.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

KPM said:


> Excellent post DanT!   I agree 100%.  I've said some of the same things recently on the facebook Wing Chun forum and you'd be surprised at the amount of crap I got in response!  Wing Chun is evolving.  A distinct difference is developing between "classical" Wing Chun and a more modernized version that is beginning to incorporate many "boxing-like" elements.  But many people are unwilling to admit that, even to themselves.


The simple minded traditionalists will eventually become eliminated through natural selection!


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another "WC footwork" thread, some people believe that to stand in YZKYM is to train the footwork.
> 
> 
> If you can hide your
> ...


Yes, I incorporate takedowns because I also study Shaolin. Plenty of takedowns there. I also utilize similar blocking, but also head movement, slipping and ducking.


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> The simple minded traditionalists will eventually become eliminated through natural selection!



But surprisingly it wasn't the "classical" or "traditional" guys that were giving me all the crap!  It was the guys that are already sparring and incorporating "boxing-like" elements into their Wing Chun!  But they won't admit that they are actually doing this.  They see it as just making their Wing Chun work.  They don't recognize that they have departed from what was taught by most of the 1st generation Ip Man students.  They see what they are doing as "just Wing Chun" rather than a "modernized" version of Wing Chun that is obviously borrowing from boxing.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

KPM said:


> But surprisingly it wasn't the "classical" or "traditional" guys that were giving me all the crap!  It was the guys that are already sparring and incorporating "boxing-like" elements into their Wing Chun!  But they won't admit that they are actually doing this.  They see it as just making their Wing Chun work.  They don't recognize that they have departed from what was taught by most of the 1st generation Ip Man students.  They see what they are doing as "just Wing Chun" rather than a "modernized" version of Wing Chun that is obviously borrowing from boxing.


To be honest with you, I held on to the notion for a long time that what I taught was traditional, that it was others who had something missing. I realized that it was my sifu who, like you, like Bruce Lee, realized the limitations of the system as it exists. We have adapted. We see the issues and have adjusted. Running up the middle chain punching doesn't work. Yip Man Wing Chun is today's Nokia. It's time to bring it into the modern age.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

I had learned WC from Ip Men's student Jimmy Kao. I had also met Ip Men's students Jeffery Law and Albert Law. As far as I know, only Albert Law had some sparring experience. I had sparred with Albert Law. He had good Tang Shou that made me interested in the WC system. Apparently, sparring was not trained seriously in Ip Men's school. In other words, some of Ip Men's students had no sparring experience back then.

When Jimmy Kao taught me the SLT, I asked him why he only

- punched by his arm without body rotation.
- stood in YJKYM without any footwork training.

He didn't have any good answer for both of my questions. After I had learned all 3 WC forms from him, I still didn't learn any body rotation and footwork.

People may said that the footwork is in the double knifes training and long pole training. If that's the case, any student who has not learned double knifes and long pole won't be able to learn any footwork. Also if the footwork is in the wooden dummy training, since the wooden dummy doesn't move, how can you train your footwork against a static object? It makes no sense to me.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Back in 1973, I had learned WC from Ip Men's student Jimmy Kao. I had also met Ip Men's students Jeffery Law and Albert Law. As far as I know, only Albert Law had some sparring experience. I had sparred with Albert Law. He had good Tang Shou that made me interested in the WC system. Apparently, sparring was not trained seriously in Ip Men's school. In other words, some of Ip Men's students had no sparring experience back then.
> 
> When Jimmy Kao taught me the SLT, I asked him why he only
> 
> ...


I think for the most part, many Wing Chun schools introduce body rotation fairly early on, but fail to implement it in actual sparring and combat. Body rotation can be found in the Chum Kiu and Bil Jee forms, both of which are usually taught before the Wooden Dummy. The reality is that if a student doesn't have good body work and footwork by the time they get to the weapons, they won't get any better. Footwork is extremely lacking in 95% of Wing Chun taught. In order to fix this, the Wing Chun student should look at Boxing, which along with their strikes, specialize in footwork. Wing Chun should adapt Boxing footwork, head movement, and striking combination strategies. It should also adopt Boxing / MMA training strategies (running, weight lifting, skipping). Adding a ground game via BJJ is also important. Wing Chun must adapt. It is adapting. In 25 years it will be unrecognizable from the Wing Chun of Yip Man. That is a good thing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> Footwork is extremely lacking in 95% of Wing Chun taught. In order to fix this, the Wing Chun student should look at Boxing, which along with their strikes, specialize in footwork.


What kind of boxing footwork are you talking about? IMO, all footwork can be found in other CMA systems such as:

- 1/2 step,
- full step,
- 1 and 1/2 step,
- side step,
- wheeling step,
- 3 points step,
- hopping step,
- circular step,
- long distance jump in,
- long distance jump back,
- ...

For example, the most common side step footwork is when you and your opponent have same side forward, you move your back foot and line up with both of his feet. This way, you are in your opponent's blind side and his back hand cannot reach you.

You then

- move in your leading foot along your opponent's feet line,
- guide his leading arm to jam his own back arm, and
- execute your technique.

I'm not sure whether boxing uses this footwork or not.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What kind of boxing footwork are you talking about? IMO, all footwork can be found in other CMA systems such as:
> 
> - 1/2 step,
> - full step,
> ...


For the most part, most Boxing footwork can be found in certain Southern styles such as White Crane, which heavily emphasizes side stepping and pivoting. Yes, although I am not a professional boxer, boxing also involves side stepping and circling away from the power arm. Boxing encompass a complete footwork system that vastly overpowers 95% of the Wing Chun footwork taught. That is why Bruce Lee studied Boxing in addition to Wing Chun. It completes the system by adding head movement, footwork, conditioning, and combination strategies.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> For the most part, most Boxing footwork can be found in certain Southern styles such as White Crane, which heavily emphasizes side stepping and pivoting. Yes, although I am not a professional boxer, boxing also involves side stepping and circling away from the power arm. Boxing encompass a complete footwork system that vastly overpowers 95% of the Wing Chun footwork taught. That is why Bruce Lee studied Boxing in addition to Wing Chun. It completes the system by adding head movement, footwork, conditioning, and combination strategies.


IMO, the major difference between boxing and CMA is for

- boxing, a punch is just a punch.
- CMA. a punch is a punch followed by a pull.

In CMA when you punch and your opponent blocks, you will change your punch into a pull. You then either punch with the same hand, or punch with the other hand. Because the pulling concept, the footwork may be different between boxing and CMA. In other words, if you miss your punch, in

- boxing, you may move back.
- CMA, you may pull your opponent's blocking arm and still move in.

Some punch and pull concept can be seen in this clip.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the major difference between boxing and CMA is for
> 
> - boxing, a punch is just a punch.
> - CMA. a punch is a punch followed by a pull.
> ...


Mainly because you wear gloves in boxing. However one punch in boxing is followed immediately by a second and third. This combination striking is useful for Wing Chun. Many are without it.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the major difference between boxing and CMA is for
> 
> - boxing, a punch is just a punch.
> - CMA. a punch is a punch followed by a pull.
> ...


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> The simple minded traditionalists will eventually become eliminated through natural selection!



Nah. That is like saying fat people will eventually realize that willpower is the best weight loss supplement.

Never going to happen.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2018)

It is very hard to release the mental baggage of years of martial arts training and actually look at what works and what doesn't.

MMA is a very effective route for doing that. But it is also a very unforgiving route.

I have so many martial arts moves I just can't do any more solely because they are not efficient. And the people I train with will not give me the time and space to fart around. 

And it sucks because it means breaking all these preconceived ideas of what being a martial artist is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> Mainly because you wear gloves in boxing. However one punch in boxing is followed immediately by a second and third. This combination striking is useful for Wing Chun. Many are without it.


If WC uses the boxing approach, and if the pulling is not emphasized after the punch, the WC will always be a pure striking art. The wrestling art will never be able to be integrated into the WC system. The WC Fu Shou is a pulling. The connection between the striking art and the wrestling art is already available. It's just not used to be linked to the wrestling art.

Here is another CMA striking art that uses pulling (similar to WC Fu Shou) to link to the wrestling art.






The preying mantis system also uses Diao Shou (similar to WC Fu Shou) to achieve the same goal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

drop bear said:


> MMA is a very effective route for doing that. But it is also a very unforgiving route.


If you just fight the golden glove boxing once in your life time, you will modify your MA training for the rest of your life. When you have seen that your opponent moves in like an animal and tries to knock your head off, you then realize how important it is to protect your head from punching.


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> I think for the most part, many Wing Chun schools introduce body rotation fairly early on, but fail to implement it in actual sparring and combat. Body rotation can be found in the Chum Kiu and Bil Jee forms, both of which are usually taught before the Wooden Dummy. The reality is that if a student doesn't have good body work and footwork by the time they get to the weapons, they won't get any better. Footwork is extremely lacking in 95% of Wing Chun taught. In order to fix this, the Wing Chun student should look at Boxing, which along with their strikes, specialize in footwork. Wing Chun should adapt Boxing footwork, head movement, and striking combination strategies. It should also adopt Boxing / MMA training strategies (running, weight lifting, skipping). Adding a ground game via BJJ is also important. Wing Chun must adapt. It is adapting. In 25 years it will be unrecognizable from the Wing Chun of Yip Man. That is a good thing.



Man, just say that in the facebook forum and you'll catch all kinds of hell!!!  But I agree with you!


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> For the most part, most Boxing footwork can be found in certain Southern styles such as White Crane, which heavily emphasizes side stepping and pivoting. Yes, although I am not a professional boxer, boxing also involves side stepping and circling away from the power arm. Boxing encompass a complete footwork system that vastly overpowers 95% of the Wing Chun footwork taught. That is why Bruce Lee studied Boxing in addition to Wing Chun. It completes the system by adding head movement, footwork, conditioning, and combination strategies.


 
And....the specific "engine" or body mechanics to go with good fast footwork with rotational power generation for fast combination punches from multiple angles.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> - Lack of mobile footwork


This is the most surprising in all of these type of videos.  I guess it's because of all of the competitive sports that I've played. For me footwork is the most basic thing that a person can do for a physical activity is footwork and balance.  Yet, we see so many videos of bad footwork.  I was thinking that even if they didn't know how to fight, that at least their footwork and coordination would be good.


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

Ok.  I laid this out in the "Martial Boxing Forum" on FB as well.    The guy in the OP on this thread is doing fairly standard "classical" Wing Chun.  One could argue that he isn't doing a great job of it, but it is the way Wing Chun functioned back a generation ago.  Because back in Ip Man's day, and certainly in Leung Jan's day, they faced a very different kind of fighter.  Wing Chun was really designed to face guys that fought like this:







Here is an example of a Wing Chun guy facing someone like in the above video.  Notice it isn't much different than what the guy is doing in the OP video:







Like I said.....Wing Chun guys have been "evolving" their "classical" Wing Chun to work better in a modern sparring/fighting environment. And they are doing this by starting to do more and more "Boxing-like" things with their Wing Chun. But many of them won't admit this, even to themselves! They say this is just how to make Wing Chun work! All the while totally ignoring or denying the western boxing influences on what they are doing!  So, if they actually admit what is going on and actually focus on developing it as DanT has said, then the evolution will proceed much more quickly and efficiently!  Instead, too many seem to have this loyalty to "tradition" and don't want to be seen as being outside of it.  So they go to great lengths to justify what they are doing without saying they are borrowing from boxing or kickboxing.  Recently when two Wing Chun fighters were seen throwing pretty standard Thai round kicks swinging from the hips, one well-known Sifu even tried to justify it by saying that it was simply "momentum handling from the Bui Gee form"!!!!  

And I'm sure many of you will recall a past discussion here where some WSLVT guys were training for MMA and doing fairly standard "high covers" from boxing....but were said to be doing "pure WSLVT" and the high cover motion was just the sweeping arm motion from the 3rd section of the Bui Gee form! 

Now I don't want to see "classical" Wing Chun disappear!  There are many reasons for studying a martial art and not everyone has aspirations to be a fighter.  There is certainly room for both "streams" of Wing Chun!  But what really gets me is the people that try and deny that there are two distinct "streams" of Wing Chun that have been developing for awhile now!

If you had put one of Alan Orr's boys up against Xu rather than a "classical" Wing Chun guy, the results likely would have been VERY different!


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It is very hard to release the mental baggage of years of martial arts training and actually look at what works and what doesn't.
> 
> MMA is a very effective route for doing that. But it is also a very unforgiving route.
> 
> ...


I agree with you. A few years ago I put my training on hold for 3 months, signed up at the local MMA club, sparred like mad with them every day for 3 months straight, learned some things off of them and they learned some things from me. I picked up some useful training methods that I've added into my own training. I like experimenting. Two years ago I signed up as a "test subject" for the local police trainees. My job was to kick the **** out of them while they tried to arrest me. Man was that fun. God do I hate batons.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> However one punch in boxing is followed immediately by a second and third. This combination striking is useful for Wing Chun. Many are without it.


The switch hands principle is missing in boxing. The boxing combination is always right, left, right, left, ... The CMA combination can be right, left, right, left, ... . But CMA can also use switch hands such as:

- You throw a right punch, your opponent blocks it.
- You pull your opponent's blocking arm with your right hand.
- You then use your left hand to take over your opponent's blocking arm (this will free your right arm).
- You still punch back with your right hand.

I don't think boxing uses this principle at all. If WC uses the boxing combo principle, WC will miss the "switch hands" principle.


----------



## DanT (Mar 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The switch hands principle is missing in boxing. The boxing combination is always right, left, right, left, ... The CMA combination can be right, left, right, left, ... . But CMA can also use switch hands such as:
> 
> - You throw a right punch, your opponent blocks it.
> - You pull your opponent's blocking arm with your right hand.
> ...


Actually, Boxing uses the same hand to strike multiple times, Mike Tyson was excellent at this. Common combinations include:

-Jab, cross, left hook, right upper cut x2, right Hook

-Jab x2, left hook





That is a perfect example.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 23, 2018)

DanT said:


> Boxing uses the same hand to strike multiple times, ...


If WC takes the

- boxing path, WC may be able to reach to the boxing level.
- wrestling integration path (such as Sanda), WC may be able to reach to the MMA level (or Sanda level).

IMO,

MMA path (or Sanda path) > boxing path


----------



## KPM (Mar 23, 2018)

I think the "boxing path" would be a more productive and a better fit for Wing Chun than the "MMA/San Da" path simply because the boxing biomechanic is generally tight and compact and a more natural transition for Wing Chun.   I don't mean that one would exclude kicks and sweeps and such.  I'm just saying that sticking to a boxing "engine" as much as possible and avoiding wide postures and long movements is more "Wing Chun-like" and therefore a better fit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 24, 2018)

KPM said:


> I think the "boxing path" would be a more productive and a better fit for Wing Chun ...


But boxing (pure striking art) and Judo/wrestling (pure wrestling art) are just a subset of the Sanda which is also a subset of the MMA. No matter which path that you may take, if you want to compete with MMA guys, you still have to integrate the wrestling art and the ground game art.

I don't believe a your goal is just to be able to defeat a boxer. For short term goal, the boxing path may be OK. For long term goal, the wrestling path just cannot be avoided.

WC + boxing = pure striking art
WC + boxing + wrestling/Judo = Sanda (no ground game)
WC + boxing + wrestling/Judo + BJJ = MMA

It depends on how far that you want your WC system to evolve.


----------



## KPM (Mar 24, 2018)

You obviously didn't read my entire post:

" I don't mean that one would exclude kicks and sweeps and such. I'm just saying that sticking to a boxing "engine" as much as possible and avoiding wide postures and long movements is more "Wing Chun-like" and therefore a better fit."


----------



## DanT (Mar 24, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But boxing (pure striking art) and Judo/wrestling (pure wrestling art) are just a subset of the Sanda which is also a subset of the MMA. No matter which path that you may take, if you want to compete with MMA guys, you still have to integrate the wrestling art and the ground game art.
> 
> I don't believe a your goal is just to be able to defeat a boxer. For short term goal, the boxing path may be OK. For long term goal, the wrestling path just cannot be avoided.
> 
> ...


The issue is with Wing Chun as a STRIKING system. 95% of it has limited footwork, limited head movement, limited striking patters, and limited conditioning. Incorporating Boxing fixes these problems. Grappling is important, which is why I suggest crosstraining in BJJ and incorporating Grappling as well (even if only white belt techniques).


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 24, 2018)

Reading through these posting I find a lot that I agree with, I also find a lot of misconceptions about classical Wing Chun. Our perceptions of classical Wing Chun largely come from Yip Man's lineage. Now this isnt to disparage this lineage, but, their function and approach is very specific. It became very popular very fast and was emulated by other branches because of its commercial success. I want to state that for the record, that some traditional CMA's still do and have always emphasized the full array of skills that laid the foundation of Sanda through deployment of Ti,  Da,  Shuai,  Na. I was fortunate enough to have studied under individuals that emphasized Qinna theory. Now most people associate Qinna with grappling, but this is a fallacy,  Qinna theory actually incorporates the full array of fighting methods. These include: Separating the Muscle,  Tearing Muscle, Misplacing the Bone, Vein Seizing and Strangulation, and Cavity Press. The way all these methods are achieved are through Ti (Kicking), Da (Striking), Shuai (Throwing) & Na (Seizing). Qinna theory states that every major movement of a form has the application of each Qinna method contained within them. The problem lies in the fact that few truly understand the theory or know how to extrapolate the application from the movement and focus solely on what they believe to be obvious and refuse to believe that there are other applications to the movement that contradict their initial belief of what it represents. This is the true understanding of a conceptual martial art. All the elements are there if you take the time to look and truly understand what it is that you are doing. Once understood there is no need to force a strategy upon a movement to support a narrative of a pigeon holed belief. Now a Bong Sau becomes something more than a sweeping parry, it becomes a choke, an elbow strike or a lock, Tan Sau becomes a strike, choke or fundamental set up for a throw, etc. The forms purpose is to act as an encyclopedia of information that is to be extrapolated and then put into use. It is a guideline only, not something written is stone to be blindly adhered to as the only representation of movement, use, structure and form, it is a BASIC idea. Some CMA's contain no structured forms in their system thus allowing for numerous interpretations of their theory, Wing Chun is no different. It's the lineage masters that limit the system, it's not the systems that are limited. When looked at from this perspective and approached from this philosophy, CMA's can be very practical and effective methods that allow for numerous interpretations based on personal preference without sacrificing traditional integrity. In this aspect, cross training now serves to strengthen personal weakness and help one to better understand methods like boxing or grappling that emphasize and specialize in a specific aspect.


----------



## DanT (Mar 24, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> Reading through these posting I find a lot that I agree with, I also find a lot of misconceptions about classical Wing Chun. Our perceptions of classical Wing Chun largely come from Yip Man's lineage. Now this isnt to disparage this lineage, but, their function and approach is very specific. It became very popular very fast and was emulated by other branches because of its commercial success. I want to state that for the record, that some traditional CMA's still do and have always emphasized the full array of skills that laid the foundation of Sanda through deployment of Ti,  Da,  Shuai,  Na. I was fortunate enough to have studied under individuals that emphasized Qinna theory. Now most people associate Qinna with grappling, but this is a fallacy,  Qinna theory actually incorporates the full array of fighting methods. These include: Separating the Muscle,  Tearing Muscle, Misplacing the Bone, Vein Seizing and Strangulation, and Cavity Press. The way all these methods are achieved are through Ti (Kicking), Da (Striking), Shuai (Throwing) & Na (Seizing). Qinna theory states that every major movement of a form has the application of each Qinna method contained within them. The problem lies in the fact that few truly understand the theory or know how to extrapolate the application from the movement and focus solely on what they believe to be obvious and refuse to believe that there are other applications to the movement that contradict their initial belief of what it represents. This is the true understanding of a conceptual martial art. All the elements are there if you take the time to look and truly understand what it is that you are doing. Once understood there is no need to force a strategy upon a movement to support a narrative of a pigeon holed belief. Now a Bong Sau becomes something more than a sweeping parry, it becomes a choke, an elbow strike or a lock, Tan Sau becomes a strike, choke or fundamental set up for a throw, etc. The forms purpose is to act as an encyclopedia of information that is to be extrapolated and then put into use. It is a guideline only, not something written is stone to be blindly adhered to as the only representation of movement, use, structure and form, it is a BASIC idea. Some CMA's contain no structured forms in their system thus allowing for numerous interpretations of their theory, Wing Chun is no different. It's the lineage masters that limit the system, it's not the systems that are limited. When looked at from this perspective and approached from this philosophy, CMA's can be very practical and effective methods that allow for numerous interpretations based on personal preference without sacrificing traditional integrity. In this aspect, cross training now serves to strengthen personal weakness and help one to better understand methods like boxing or grappling that emphasize and specialize in a specific aspect.


As a TCMA practitioner myself, I'm inclined to agree. The issue at hand here is how 95% of Wing Chun taught is inferior to almost all other Martial Arts. The 5% that is good is only because they adopt training methods and concepts from other Martial Arts. A majority of Wing Chun is limited in its footwork, conditioning methods, strikes, etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 24, 2018)

DanT said:


> A majority of Wing Chun is limited in its footwork, ...


Many years ago, in one challenge fight against a TKD black belt, I was about 12 feet away from my opponent.

- I had my left leg forward,
- I stepped in with my left leg,
- jumped up with my left leg,
- landed on my right leg,
- landed my left foot behind and forward of my right leg as a "stealing step".
- I then leaned my body forward,

finally my right fist could hit on my opponent's face and ended that fight. My opponent didn't know that I could punch him from 12 feet away (I was young and I could jump). If I didn't learn that "far jumping forward" footwork, that fight won't be ended so soon.

That footwork can be seen at 0.58 in the following clip. CMA has a lot of good footworks. IMO, there is no need to look for in the boxing system.






Many good footwork can be seen in this clip too. At 0.31, there is a "far jump backward" footwork. If your opponent moves in toward you and tries to knock your head off, a far distance backward jump can let you to regain that safe distance.


----------



## KPM (Mar 24, 2018)

DanT said:


> As a TCMA practitioner myself, I'm inclined to agree. The issue at hand here is how 95% of Wing Chun taught is inferior to almost all other Martial Arts. The 5% that is good is only because they adopt training methods and concepts from other Martial Arts. A majority of Wing Chun is limited in its footwork, conditioning methods, strikes, etc.



I agree that what we are referring to or describing as "classical" Wing Chun really is "classical Ip Man" Wing Chun.  But I'm not sure how far off that is from how other "classical" Wing Chun systems were meant to function.  I doubt that there is a huge difference though.  But I also agree with DanT and think that the problem is not so much in understanding the concepts behind the system, but really in the fact that it has the wrong "engine" for fast evasive footwork & body movement, and quick combinations of punches from multiple angles.  

BTW....welcome back "Nobody Important"!!!


----------



## Buka (Mar 24, 2018)

@NobodyImportant - welcome back, bro.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 24, 2018)

KPM said:


> I agree that what we are referring to or describing as "classical" Wing Chun really is "classical Ip Man" Wing Chun.  But I'm not sure how far off that is from how other "classical" Wing Chun systems were meant to function.  I doubt that there is a huge difference though.  But I also agree with DanT and think that the problem is not so much in understanding the concepts behind the system, but really in the fact that it has the wrong "engine" for fast evasive footwork & body movement, and quick combinations of punches from multiple angles.
> 
> BTW....welcome back "Nobody Important"!!!


I agree to an extent. Now, speaking specifically to my branch of Yuen Family Wing Chun, our emphasis is on grappling first with boxing being a supplement. This changes the "engine" dramatically from a boxing only/first methodology. For us it works and from our perspective makes more logical sense for a lot of movements and positions that seem out of place from a boxing perspective. To me, I see an equal distribution of Ti,  Da , Shuai, & Na in Yuen Family Wing Chun. I say that our primary emphasis is on grappling because our strategy and belief is that if Wing Chun is a close quarter method, what is closer than grappling? Our method is designed around the clinch and our punching, kicking, grappling & throwing techniques are based on being grabbed. This means that a lot of the movement and strategy is centered around the clinch and not about trying to close the gap from a distance, grappling on the ground or boxing from a distance as a means to subjugate. While our method has some movement and techniques to address these areas, there are better methods for that, but in the clinch, used right, Wing Chun is king IMO. To me it's a specialty method that shouldn't be forced into a paradigm that it wasn't meant to work in. Hence, me always iterating that its a method of refinement based around the clinch. From here you can go to whatever range you want, ground, kick, punch, throwing but youll need a seperate method that supports the mode. IMO Wing Chun does not effectively address other ranges, it was designed for clinch.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 24, 2018)

Thanks for the welcome back everyone.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 24, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> Thanks for the welcome back everyone.



Welcome back NI


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 24, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> our emphasis is on grappling first with boxing being a supplement.


I do agree this approach is better. 

If you train wrestling, do you want to add Judo knowledge, or do you want to add boxing knowledge? Since Judo is similar to wrestling, for a wrestler to add Judo knowledge is not going to help him very much. But for a wrestler to add boxing knowledge, it will help him a lot.

So for a WC guy to add boxing knowledge, it may help just a little bit. But if a WC guy integrate the wrestling knowledge, it will help much more.


----------



## KPM (Mar 24, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> I agree to an extent. Now, speaking specifically to my branch of Yuen Family Wing Chun, our emphasis is on grappling first with boxing being a supplement. This changes the "engine" dramatically from a boxing only/first methodology. For us it works and from our perspective makes more logical sense for a lot of movements and positions that seem out of place from a boxing perspective. To me, I see an equal distribution of Ti,  Da , Shuai, & Na in Yuen Family Wing Chun. I say that our primary emphasis is on grappling because our strategy and belief is that if Wing Chun is a close quarter method, what is closer than grappling? Our method is designed around the clinch and our punching, kicking, grappling & throwing techniques are based on being grabbed. This means that a lot of the movement and strategy is centered around the clinch and not about trying to close the gap from a distance, grappling on the ground or boxing from a distance as a means to subjugate. While our method has some movement and techniques to address these areas, there are better methods for that, but in the clinch, used right, Wing Chun is king IMO. To me it's a specialty method that shouldn't be forced into a paradigm that it wasn't meant to work in. Hence, me always iterating that its a method of refinement based around the clinch. From here you can go to whatever range you want, ground, kick, punch, throwing but youll need a seperate method that supports the mode. IMO Wing Chun does not effectively address other ranges, it was designed for clinch.



Would love to see more of the Wing Chun that you do!  But I think what you are describing does not apply to the Ip Man Wing Chun that the vast majority of Wing Chun people are practicing.  Because one of the short-comings of "classical" Ip Man Wing Chun is that when people are fighting/sparring and end up at close range....rather than Chi Sau skills and applications kicking in....it tends to go right to the clinch, for which these "classical" Ip Man guys typically have no answer unless they have trained something else in addition to their Wing Chun.  The video in the OP is a perfect example.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 24, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another "WC footwork" thread, some people believe that to stand in YZKYM is to train the footwork.
> 
> 
> What was said in that thread is that training in the stance lays the basis for and facilitates GOOD footwork and, hence, by that token training the stance trains the footwork (eventually). The path you appear to advocate leads precisely to the kind of “footwork” that aided in this wing chun guy having his back side handed to him.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 24, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> CMA has a lot of good footworks. IMO, there is no need to look for in the boxing system.


I agree with this.  CMA has a lot of good footwork it's just that not everyone trains their footwork beyond the forms. The footwork is already there it's just not utilized.  From the little bit that I know of my own system. The footwork is specifically created in a way that fits the striking, kicking, and grappling of that system.   Add in boxing footwork and the practitioner will will not be able to perform simple things like foot hooks, sweeps, trips, and other lower techniques.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 24, 2018)

KPM said:


> Would love to see more of the Wing Chun that you do!  But I think what you are describing does not apply to the Ip Man Wing Chun that the vast majority of Wing Chun people are practicing.  Because one of the short-comings of "classical" Ip Man Wing Chun is that when people are fighting/sparring and end up at close range....rather than Chi Sau skills and applications kicking in....it tends to go right to the clinch, for which these "classical" Ip Man guys typically have no answer unless they have trained something else in addition to their Wing Chun.  The video in the OP is a perfect example.


Really it isn't anything special, it's just a method looked at and approached from a different perspective. One that can easily be applied to any other branch of Wing Chun. It's about getting away from the belief that Wing Chun is designed solely around an incoming punch and instead based upon a release from a hold via a punch, kick, throw or grapple. Our focus is on clinching range, not purposefully trying to get into it but being found in it. As previously stated there are better methods for striking range, throwing range, kicking range and grappling range. Where these methods may have basic dealings with clinching range, they do not specialize in it, Wing Chun does. On the contrary,  Wing Chun, while having basic tools for these other ranges, does not specialize in them, but is good for refining them to the clinching range. From this perspective, while Wing Chun is superb in clinching range,  if it is to be used outside of that range it needs to be supplemented. I don't see any issue with this as IMO adding to it takes nothing away from its designed purpose and only enhances it's usefulness. IMO it isn't any different than adding a standup striking strategy to BJJ or a ground kicking strategy to Shuai Jiao. Yet traditionalist frown upon adding anything to the art of Wing Chun because they view it as a complete all around method of fighting. Unfortunately this just isnt the case for most branches of the art, they don't view it as having a very specific range and purpose and refuse to believe that other specialized methods are compatible with it. And that dogmatic belief is complete and utter rubbish.


----------



## DanT (Mar 24, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this.  CMA has a lot of good footwork it's just that not everyone trains their footwork beyond the forms. The footwork is already there it's just not utilized.  From the little bit that I know of my own system. The footwork is specifically created in a way that fits the striking, kicking, and grappling of that system.   Add in boxing footwork and the practitioner will will not be able to perform simple things like foot hooks, sweeps, trips, and other lower techniques.


I agree, as the other systems I practice (Shaolin and Tai Chi) both have extensive footwork patterns. Wing Chun footwork in its forms is fairly limited to a few steps and Circle steps. 95% of Wing Chun practitioners are limited by this as they do not understand that the footwork in the forms is simply a training tool and not a dogmatic limitation on the footwork they can do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

Here are clips that WC system has integrated with the throwing art. The integration work has already be done.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Add in boxing footwork and the practitioner will will not be able to perform simple things like foot hooks, sweeps, trips, and other lower techniques.


Agree! The boxing footwork does not include any "leg skill" such as sweep, scoop, cut, hook, lift, twist, break, block, spring, bite, ...

By adding boxing footwork will drag the WC system further away from the kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game integration.

Here is an example of "neck wiping foot sweep". If you can put your hand on the back of your opponent's neck, a foot sweep can take him down.


----------



## KPM (Mar 25, 2018)

John, I don't see how any of the examples you provided are not workable from "boxing footwork."   As NI pointed out, the boxing element is not what is primarily functioning at that range.  The boxing element is used to close the gap, to maintain distance, etc.  You can certainly kick from a  boxing structure.  There is no reason why a boxing structure would exclude any of the throwing/takedown techniques that you showed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

KPM said:


> You can certainly kick from a boxing structure. There is no reason why a boxing structure would exclude any of the throwing/takedown techniques that you showed.


It doesn't seem like it would from looking at it from the outside but it does.  
This simple kick in the video is a a good example of it.  It shows both the boxing and non boxing structure.  All of the Jon Jones  kicks are done from a non-boxing structure.  This kick isn't effective when it is thrown from a boxing structure.  The boxing structure is also a week defense for this type of kick.  Had they been in a martial art structure, a simple shuffle back like in Wing Chun would have gotten them out of danger.  If they had a bow or horse stance structure then they would actually be able to take the kick head on, without the knee bending backwards.





Sometimes a martial arts stance may look like a boxing stance but it's not and as a result the stance becomes deceptive. And CMAs have a lot of deceptive stances.


----------



## Tong Chuang (Mar 25, 2018)

I agree with KPM that Ip Man 'Classical Wing Chun' is unprepared for modern MMA or many realistic street encounters.

The WC guy in the Xu Xiaodong fight above is making the 'classical' mistake of keeping his lead leg extended - presenting a near target - a side-body neutral stance is more traditional.

When I trained with the EWTO they did include Anti-grappling / groundwork as part of the curriculum but their footwork / facing strategy was sorely lacking.
One of Ip Chun's top students came off worst vs an MMA guy years ago:





At least some lineages are now including methods to deal with varied attacks, but yes, WC is in a delusional state.
Criticize Sifu Benny Meng all you want but he was ahead of the curve in this aspect.

Why is there not even a method to get up from the ground in any of the WC forms? I was told it is at the end of the Bil Jee form but if you try to use it, it hardly works! (There is a good method in Monkey Kung FU for getting up which I am adding to my personal curriculum).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

KPM said:


> You can certainly kick from a  boxing structure.  There is no reason why a boxing structure would exclude any of the throwing/takedown techniques that you showed.


It's not the structure, it's the footwork.

Boxing has no concept of

- rooting leg, and
- attacking leg.

In order to apply your leg skill (use your leg to attack your opponent's leg), you have to land your rooting leg at the right spot during the right time, so you will have the correct

- distance,
- angle, and
- timing.

When a boxer moves his leg, he will only think about his punches. He will not think about his leg skill. How important is a boxer to consider his opponent weight shifting from one leg to another? It's totally different priority consideration.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

Tong Chuang said:


> I agree with KPM that Ip Man 'Classical Wing Chun' is unprepared for modern MMA or many realistic street encounters.
> 
> The WC guy in the Xu Xiaodong fight above is making the 'classical' mistake of keeping his lead leg extended - presenting a near target - a side-body neutral stance is more traditional.
> 
> ...


That was painful to watch. Flailing legs


----------



## KPM (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Had they been in a martial art structure, a simple shuffle back like in Wing Chun would have gotten them out of danger. .



You think someone wouldn't do a "simple shuffle  back" from a boxing structure????


----------



## KPM (Mar 25, 2018)

Tong Chuang said:


> I agree with KPM that Ip Man 'Classical Wing Chun' is unprepared for modern MMA or many realistic street encounters.
> 
> The WC guy in the Xu Xiaodong fight above is making the 'classical' mistake of keeping his lead leg extended - presenting a near target - a side-body neutral stance is more traditional.
> 
> ...



We agree!  Small detail.....Steve Faulkner was one of Duncan Leung's students, not Ip Chun.   And Igor was a beast!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

APL76 said:


> What was said in that thread is that training in the stance lays the basis for and facilitates GOOD footwork and, hence, by that token training the stance trains the footwork (eventually). The path you appear to advocate leads precisely to the kind of “footwork” that aided in this wing chun guy having his back side handed to him.


I don't agree that training stance lays the basis for good footwork. Footwork is not to shift from one stance into another stance (such as to shift from horse stance into bow-arrow stance). Footwork is to move your left foot from point L1 to point L2, and move your right foot from point R1 to point R2. Sometime a footwork can be as simple as to "single leg hop". 

Does this "single leg hop" has anything to do with stance training? I don't think so.











A XingYi teacher will ask his students to do 4 miles fast walking daily to develop the footwork foundation. Old saying said, "Even if you can't find any opening to attack on your opponent, you just keep moving, during your moving, soon or later you will find opportunity to attack your opponent."

I also don't understand what you mean "having his back side handed to him".

Here is an example of body spinning. Spin back fist, back kick, ... can all be added in if needed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

Tong Chuang said:


> Why is there not even a method to get up from the ground in any of the WC forms? I was told it is at the end of the Bil Jee form but if you try to use it, it hardly works! (There is a good method in Monkey Kung FU for getting up which I am adding to my personal curriculum).


During the ground game "full mount", if you are on top "with both knees on the ground", how to borrow your opponent's body structure to "stand up on both feet" is a very important ground skill. IMO, all MA systems should train this. Without this, a ground game will make you to lose mobility big time.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

KPM said:


> You think someone wouldn't do a "simple shuffle  back" from a boxing structure????


 I don't think someone would be able to do a simple shuffle to avoid that type specific type of kick to the knee, if they are in a boxing stance.  The type of shuffle that would get you out of the range of that kick requires the legs to be in a specific position and for weight to be distributed differently.  If you have to put weight on your front leg before the shuffle then you won't be able to get out of the way of the kick. 

You have to keep in mind that boxing footwork was developed outside of the context of being kicked.  I just showed you a video of MMA fighters who couldn't get out of the way and they were using boxing structure.

Here's another example.   You can see him try to shuffle, but his structure is not the one that he needs in order to successfully get out of the way.  





edit:  I can guaranteed that if kicking was allowed in boxing, that the boxer's stance and boxers method of shuffling would change in a way that will allow it to be more effect against the kicks.  I'm not saying that one shuffle is better than the other, but one shuffle was created in the context of avoiding kicks and punches and the other one wasn't.   If you are fighting against someone who kicks then you want to have the footwork that was designed to move you away from kicks.


----------



## DanT (Mar 25, 2018)

Tong Chuang said:


> I agree with KPM that Ip Man 'Classical Wing Chun' is unprepared for modern MMA or many realistic street encounters.
> 
> The WC guy in the Xu Xiaodong fight above is making the 'classical' mistake of keeping his lead leg extended - presenting a near target - a side-body neutral stance is more traditional.
> 
> ...


It's not in any form, but as I mentioned previously, I personally learned several ways to get up from my Sifu, all of which he learned from the other Martial Arts he knows. Wing Chun itself doesn't provide any method of standing up. In Shaolin I can think of 10+ ways of standing up.


----------



## DanT (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think someone would be able to do a simple shuffle to avoid that type specific type of kick to the knee, if they are in a boxing stance.  The type of shuffle that would get you out of the range of that kick requires the legs to be in a specific position and for weight to be distributed differently.  If you have to put weight on your front leg before the shuffle then you won't be able to get out of the way of the kick.
> 
> You have to keep in mind that boxing footwork was developed outside of the context of being kicked.  I just showed you a video of MMA fighters who couldn't get out of the way and they were using boxing structure.
> 
> ...


I think KPM is referring to boxing footwork in terms of a short, medium, and extremely long range where kicks aren't a factor. Boxing and MMA footwork are fairly similar. It's only in kicking range that the footwork needs to be slightly adjusted.


----------



## DanT (Mar 25, 2018)

I think we can all agree that 95% of Wing Chun is poorly suited for any real encounter. We all seem to agree that adding a basic ground game is fundimental.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example of body spinning. Spin back fist, back kick, ... can all be added in if needed.



Some WC lineages aleady contain a 360 spin motion in their form(s).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't agree that training stance lays the basis for good footwork.


Stationary stance training doesn't lay the basis of good footwork. But it does help certain elements.  For example, stance training will help you become more aware of slight shifts in your own balance and it provides some leg conditioning benefits as well,  but these are more fine tuning aspects.  The majority of the footwork basics is going to involve actually moving.  Stance training basics should be done in the context of moving, which is what you are talking about.  

When I was teaching kung fu classes, I would start each class with moving the feet by doing drills such as moving forward, backwards, etc.  We did more of that than we did stationary stance training.   Stationary stance training was done as a secondary training, sort of like calm your mind keep the stance and focus of how the body's weight distribution shifts.  Focusing on a 50/50 weight distribution for horse stance made the shifts more noticeable as we try to maintain a 50/50 balance.

I know this mindset contradicts what most CMA schools teaches where standing in a horse stance for 5 minutes is a goal.  To me standing for 5 minutes is a waste of 4 minutes.  I personally know people who can stay in a horse stance for 5 minutes only to have goofy feet when moving during sparring.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Stationary stance training doesn't lay the basis of good footwork. But it does help certain elements.  For example, stance training will help you become more aware of slight shifts in your own balance and it provides some leg conditioning benefits as well,  but these are more fine tuning aspects.  The majority of the footwork basics is going to involve actually moving.  Stance training basics should be done in the context of moving, which is what you are talking about.
> 
> When I was teaching kung fu classes, I would start each class with moving the feet by doing drills such as moving forward, backwards, etc.  We did more of that than we did stationary stance training.   Stationary stance training was done as a secondary training, sort of like calm your mind keep the stance and focus of how the body's weight distribution shifts.  Focusing on a 50/50 weight distribution for horse stance made the shifts more noticeable as we try to maintain a 50/50 balance.
> 
> I know this mindset contradicts what most CMA schools teaches where standing in a horse stance for 5 minutes is a goal.  To me standing for 5 minutes is a waste of 4 minutes.  I personally know people who can stay in a horse stance for 5 minutes only to have goofy feet when moving during sparring.



I get what you mean,  but IMHO single leg horse training is vital to having a good rooted stable horse whether that horse is stationary or dynamic. 

The WC community is plagued with practitioners who have rushed the development of the lower half.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> I get what you mean,  but IMHO single leg horse training is vital to having a good rooted stable horse whether that horse is stationary or dynamic.
> 
> The WC community is plagued with practitioners who have rushed the development of the lower half.


If you train 100 hip throw solo drills, you will get better benefit than just to stand in horse stance for 5 minutes. To train footwork can also enhance your stance training. There is a way that you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.











If you train footwork like this daily, you will develop very strong rooting.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

DanT said:


> I think KPM is referring to boxing footwork in terms of a short, medium, and extremely long range where kicks aren't a factor.


 Oh. ok.  from that perspective, a shuffle of any type will most likely get you out of the way of the first strike for the most part.  Directional changes in the shuffle may be required on the second shuffle, but other than that a shuffle will work.   



DanT said:


> Boxing and MMA footwork are fairly similar. It's only in kicking range that the footwork needs to be slightly adjusted.


The danger with the leg kicks that Jon Jones does is that they are done from a deceptive stance. The stance is such where the it doesn't look like a kick is going to come from it.  The kick also travels below the human's visual range.   The jumping kick is a deceptive jump that freezes the opponent.

The lower stance that is common with martial arts stances, changes the field of vision and makes it easier to read the movement and increases the possibility of avoiding it.  The only reason I know this is because I've trained to fight in a lower stance and the view is definitely different. I feel more comfortable at a lower stance but it takes a lot of leg stamina to do so which is where the traditional stationary stance training helps.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> I get what you mean, but IMHO single leg horse training is vital to having a good rooted stable horse whether that horse is stationary or dynamic.


It helps with the rooting, but not the movement of the feet.  Which is why we see videos of MMA vs Kung Fu master videos where the kung fu master seems to have stumbling footwork.  By the way I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just adding to your statement.
stumbling feet





stumbling feet





stumbling feet but not as bad as the first 2 videos.  Only pay attention to the legs and you'll see where he stumbles.  You can actually see where his balance shifts in a way that would leave him open to a variety of sweeps and throws.  You can see more stability in the legs of the guy in the white pants.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


>


The MMA guy only uses hook punches. He didn't even throw one single jab or cross. This is the opposite of the WC approach. I have always believed that if

- A only throws hook punches and
- B only throws jab and cross,

A will have advantage over B. What do you guys think on this?


----------



## DanT (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The MMA guy only uses hook punches. He didn't even throw one single jab or cross. This is the opposite of the WC approach. I have always believed that if
> 
> - A only throws hook punches and
> - B only throws jab and cross,
> ...


Realistically, it's extremely difficult to knock someone out with a jab, meaning you're power shot is limited to your rear hand, therefore you only have 1 knockout punch. 95% of Chunners basically throw all their punches as jabs, so they can't knock anyone out (they don't know how to rotate their hips and shoulders to get maximum power). Both a front and rear Hook can knock someone's head off. A complete punching system such as Shaolin has:

-Straights
-Hooks
-Uppercuts
-Overhands
-Backfists


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The MMA guy only uses hook punches. He didn't even throw one single jab or cross. This is the opposite of the WC approach. I have always believed that if
> 
> - A only throws hook punches and
> - B only throws jab and cross,
> ...



in general that is the case. Unless you are a lot better than him at throwing punches.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> It helps with the rooting, but not the movement of the feet.  Which is why we see videos of MMA vs Kung Fu master videos where the kung fu master seems to have stumbling footwork.  By the way I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just adding to your statement.
> stumbling feet
> 
> 
> ...



You can do all the stance training in the world. But when you get exited and start either reaching to hit people or overeacting to avoid hits. Your footwork goes to hell.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 25, 2018)

The misconception about a jab is that it is thrown with power, it is not. The jab has 3 purposes:

1. Keep your opponent blind to your movement

2. Set your opponent up.

3. Keep your opponent at distance.

Wing Chun has hooks, uppercuts, crosses etc. Hip movement is there, as well as angling, head movement, body rotation etc. IMO it just isn't utilized much because the majority of Chunners can't envision it being used outside of a Western Boxing context. Instead opting to rely on static structure to absorb while trying to Chi Sau their way out of trouble.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> The jab has 3 purposes:
> 
> 1. Keep your opponent blind to your movement
> 2. Set your opponent up.
> 3. Keep your opponent at distance.



There is the 4th purpose for jab. That is to bait your opponent's leading arm to block it. You then pull his leading arm toward you, borrow the counter force to move in.






Your jab can be a spear with hook that can hook back anything it may contact during a stab.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is the 4th purpose for jab. That is to pull your opponent's leading arm toward you. You then borrow the counter force to move in.


I don't  completely disagree, but technically that would fall under setting them up. As far as the pulling tactic, personally Im not a big supporter of it as a means of control, especially at distance. If it happens naturally it can be an assest, but in my experience intentionally focusing on trying to pull the opponents hand from distance is a low percentage move unless bridge contact is already established. In this scenario it isn't a jab, just a pull from a pre-established bridge. Otherwise, IMO, it's just hand chasing. It's extremely difficult to catch a fast moving punch.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have always believed that if
> 
> - A only throws hook punches and
> - B only throws jab and cross,
> ...


Straight punches can beat circular punches and circular punches can beat straight punches. It depends on who does a better job of setting them up with the proper footwork, angles, body mechanics, and head movement.


----------



## KPM (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not the structure, it's the footwork.
> 
> Boxing has no concept of
> 
> ...



You are assuming a sport boxer here John.  We are talking about using the Boxing structure as a martial art.  In that context, none of what you said is true.


----------



## KPM (Mar 25, 2018)

Nobody Important said:


> The misconception about a jab is that it is thrown with power, it is not. The jab has 3 purposes:


 
True!  But a lead hand punch CAN be a power punch!  Its just usually not  called a jab at that point.  This was Bruce Lee's forte, and a key punch in JKD.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

KPM said:


> True!  But a lead hand punch CAN be a power punch!  Its just usually not  called a jab at that point.  This was Bruce Lee's forte, and a key punch in JKD.


Agree! If you are a wrestler, you have to put your strong side forward (major hand forward, and minor hand backward). If you strike, you have to depend on your leading hand.

Not sure people will call this "jab" or not.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The MMA guy only uses hook punches. He didn't even throw one single jab or cross. This is the opposite of the WC approach. I have always believed that if
> 
> - A only throws hook punches and
> - B only throws jab and cross,
> ...


 I don't think either one has a real advantage.  The hook can counter the jab and the jab can counter the hook.  However, the hook will be more lethal than the jab.  Hooks tend to land on the side of the head and on the back of the head.  Hooks are also multi-directional (multi-angle) punches and have a tendency to travel in and out of the human's field of vision.  We can look at professional fights of many systems and see just how devastating the hooks can be.  I think I rather fight someone who is good at throwing jabs than to fight someone who is good with throwing hooks.  It's just easier to analyze the punching path of Jab in comparison to the punching path of a hook, that may or may not land on your face, the back of your head, or on your kidneys.  

Keep in mind my willingness to deal with the jab over the hook is 100% based on my ability to handle one better than the other.  It could be totally different for someone who is excellent with defending against hooks but not so much with defending against jabs in comparison.


----------



## Nobody Important (Mar 25, 2018)

KPM said:


> True!  But a lead hand punch CAN be a power punch!  Its just usually not  called a jab at that point.  This was Bruce Lee's forte, and a key punch in JKD.


All punches in boxing can be thrown with the lead hand and with power, generally body movement is used to generate leverage, angle and power generation that is different than mechanics of a jab. But that's just me being particular


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> the hook will be more lethal than the jab.


If my opponent uses

- hook, I'll use "rhino guard" to protect my center from inside out.
- jab/cross, I'll use "double spears" to protect my center from outside in.

I don't care much one way or another.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If my opponent uses
> 
> - hooks, I'll use "rhino guard" to protect my center from inside out.
> - jab/cross, I'll use "double spears" to protect my center from outside in.
> ...


What do you use to defend against hooks targeting the body?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> What do you use to defend against hooks targeting the body?


When my opponent does that, his head will be exposed. That's the opportunity that I have tried to create all the time. If his body punch doesn't kill me, since my rhino guard are so close to his head, I'll get him a head lock, bend his spine side way, cut his major rooting leg, take him down, and end the striking game right there.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think either one has a real advantage.  The hook can counter the jab and the jab can counter the hook.  However, the hook will be more lethal than the jab.  Hooks tend to land on the side of the head and on the back of the head.  Hooks are also multi-directional (multi-angle) punches and have a tendency to travel in and out of the human's field of vision.  We can look at professional fights of many systems and see just how devastating the hooks can be.  I think I rather fight someone who is good at throwing jabs than to fight someone who is good with throwing hooks.  It's just easier to analyze the punching path of Jab in comparison to the punching path of a hook, that may or may not land on your face, the back of your head, or on your kidneys.
> 
> Keep in mind my willingness to deal with the jab over the hook is 100% based on my ability to handle one better than the other.  It could be totally different for someone who is excellent with defending against hooks but not so much with defending against jabs in comparison.



Good discussion thus far Gents!

You bring up solid points JGW... but just curious if you have ever done any research into the rods and cones of the human eye? If not, it's interesting stuff.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 25, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> Good discussion thus far Gents!
> 
> You bring up solid points JGW... but just curious if you have ever done any research into the rods and cones of the human eye? If not, it's interesting stuff.


I've done tons of research into rods and cones, field of vision, visual behavior, pattern recognition, pattern behavior, visual reaction, and recently Magic (specifically the misdirection part).  I try to understand more about the limitations and instinctive visual behaviors that we have as humans and how martial arts techniques exploits these elements.  Like they say, "The eyes are the windows to the soul."  Pattern Recognition and pattern behavior is my favorite.  I teach a little of it and I always refer to it as "Programming the opponent."  

There are a lot of Chinese weapons that exploit the vision and how the brain processes movement.  Martial arts techniques in general exploit pattern recognition and behavior.  Magic sounds crazy but Magicians understand visual behavior and brain response at an advanced level.  They are kings of misdirection and interaction with people.  The reason why their tricks work is because they already understand how you are going to react to what you see.  They understand how the eyes and the brain is going to process the movements.  They have an excellent since of timing.  Street Magicians are really good at it.  They capture the attention of the eyes and almost immediately put people into a state of tunnel vision.  

You can see a lot of great misdirection and what I would call "programming" your opponent.  He don't only know how to fight but he understands how his opponents will process what they see.










Here you can see him "program" his opponent


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


>


This clip remind me someone once said that if you are good in "single leg", when your opponent gets you into a MT clinch and knees at you, if you can't grab his kneeing leg and take him down, you should buy a piece of Tofu, smash it on your head, and kill yourself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> The reason why their tricks work is because they already understand how you are going to react to what you see.


This is why you should attack first instead of waiting for your opponent to attack first.

- When your opponent attacks first and you respond, your opponent can take advantage on your respond.
- When you attack first and your opponent responds, you can take advantage on his respond.

You may say that you can also take advantage on your opponent's first attack. But the number of different ways that your opponent may attack can be a much larger number than the number of different ways that your opponent may respond to your attack. For example, if your opponent attacks you with a MT flying knee, if you have never trained that, you may not know how to take advantage on it.


----------



## dudewingchun (Apr 8, 2018)

Snark said:


> I\ The same as Josh Rogan is just some guy or any other guy who likes to say that TMA is no good



Joe Rogan?


----------



## TMA17 (Apr 9, 2018)

Joe Rogan is obsessed with BJJ.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you should attack first instead of waiting for your opponent to attack first.


I'm fine either way.  I can limit the types of attacks that most people do.  Most people are going to only throw a limited set of strikes and you can pretty much tell how limited that's going to be simply by the stance a person takes or by their footwork.  I'm not special because I can do this.  I think most people can do the same, with the right training.

Like I know you'll probably try to Rhino me to death or grab my neck.. lol.


----------



## macher (Apr 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The MMA guy only uses hook punches. He didn't even throw one single jab or cross. This is the opposite of the WC approach. I have always believed that if
> 
> - A only throws hook punches and
> - B only throws jab and cross,
> ...



Hooks are harder to detect WITH footwork cause it’s a more ‘compact’ punch with a lot of power.


----------



## Martial D (Apr 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When my opponent does that, his head will be exposed. That's the opportunity that I have tried to create all the time. If his body punch doesn't kill me, since my rhino guard are so close to his head, I'll get him a head lock, bend his spine side way, cut his major rooting leg, take him down, and end the striking game right there.



So last night after class I was talking with my instructor and happened to mention your rhino guard. I showed him that video you like to post, and after the initial reaction, we threw on some gloves and messed around with attack and defense sparring for a bit.

Couple questions.

First, have you ever actually tried this?

Second, if so, is your one and only goal to get the Thai plum? Because it seems like there are easier and safer ways to do this.

Couple observations.

It's a lot easier to watch one thing(your locked arms)  than two things. Especially if that one thing isn't any threat. I found myself just doing target practice with round kicks to the body when it was my turn to fight normal, and getting hit more when it was my turn to be the rhino because parrying with two arms locked felt clunky and slow. It sorta worked against hooks I guess, but I'd rather have high cover.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 13, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Couple questions.
> 
> First, have you ever actually tried this?
> 
> ...


I have tried this with many guys from different MA systems. I always asked my opponent that if he can't punch my head within his initial 20 punches, he will have to pay me $1. Otherwise I will have to pay him $1. So far I have collected a lot of $1 bills and I have not given out any yet.

The main purpose of the "rhino guard" is to obtain a "head lock". In other words, you need to separate your opponent's arms away from his head. In fighting, if your head has strong protection, you will feel safe, relax, and you will have more courage too.

The "rhino guard" can be functioned as a rhino horn too. In training, you only hit on the chest. In fighting, you only hit on the face.






You are right, you don't need "rhino guard" to set up a "head lock". The "rhino guard" is used for the beginner, the "zombie arms - 2 stiff arms without big fist" is used for people with more experienced. As long as your hands can be close to your opponent's head, the moment that his head is exposed, you can move in.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 13, 2018)

Martial D said:


> So last night after class I was talking with my instructor and happened to mention your rhino guard. I showed him that video you like to post, and after the initial reaction, we threw on some gloves and messed around with attack and defense sparring for a bit.
> 
> Couple questions.
> 
> ...



And ironically from a grappling point of view you are open to getting double legged.

Which would be embarrassing if you were the grappler.


----------



## Martial D (Apr 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And ironically from a grappling point of view you are open to getting double legged.
> 
> Which would be embarrassing if you were the grappler.


 Yes, this! We didn't do it long enough to get into takedowns(it was moire for a laugh, and it paid out well in that regard), but its like a body language statement saying.."here have some double unders. don't worry, its safe, because it's literally impossible for me to get them"


----------



## Martial D (Apr 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "rhino guard" can be functioned as a rhino horn too. In training, you only hit on the chest. In fighting, you only hit on the face.



Ahh, the old 'Hulk Hogan double axe handle"

The problem with that is broken fingers. I don't like broken fingers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And ironically from a grappling point of view you are open to getting double legged.
> 
> Which would be embarrassing if you were the grappler.


That's why you need to know how to counter a double legs. When your opponent uses both hands to attack your legs, his head will be exposed. Most of the time, you will end like this.






If A is good in head lock, and B is good in single leg (or double legs), who will win? IMO, it's 50-50. Old saying said, "If you are

- taller than your opponent, you use "upper body control" and attack his head.
- shorter than your opponent, you use "lower body control" and attack his leg/legs, or waist."

To attack from the top will always have the body weight advantage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 13, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Yes, this! We didn't do it long enough to get into takedowns(it was moire for a laugh, and it paid out well in that regard), but its like a body language statement saying.."here have some double unders. don't worry, its safe, because it's literally impossible for me to get them"


The main point is you want to put your hands closer to your opponent's head (this is why you use stiff arms) than his hands from your leg/legs. When he shoots toward your leg/legs, since the distance between his hands to your leg/legs is farther away from the distance between your hands to his head, your hands will be able to reach to his head faster than his hands can reach to your leg/legs (assume you and your opponent have the same speed).

In wrestling, it's called to lead your opponent into the emptiness (or let him to kiss the dirt). When you have body weight on top of his neck, it's not a good place for him to be.


----------



## Martial D (Apr 14, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The main point is you want to put your hands closer to your opponent's head (this is why you use stiff arms) than his hands from your leg/legs. When he shoots toward your leg/legs, since the distance between his hands to your leg/legs is farther away from the distance between your hands to his head, your hands will be able to reach to his head faster than his hands can reach to your leg/legs (assume you and your opponent have the same speed).
> 
> In wrestling, it's called to lead your opponent into the emptiness (or let him to kiss the dirt). When you have body weight on top of his neck, it's not a good place for him to be.



I guess. I can't imagine any scenario where you get your rhino thing around someone's tucked head as they are crashing in for a shot, but you do you man.


----------



## pdg (Apr 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In fighting, you only hit on the face



In what fighting?


----------



## geezer (Apr 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> In what fighting?



I believe John is saying that this is how he applies his "Rhino Horn" technique, that is to the chest in training and to the face in actual fights.

Basically it just an entry technique used like a big, wedge-shaped snowplow to break inside a boxer's punching range to grapple and throw. Or at least that's how it looks to me.


----------



## pdg (Apr 15, 2018)

geezer said:


> Basically it just an entry technique used like a big, wedge-shaped snowplow to break inside a boxer's punching range to grapple and throw. Or at least that's how it looks to me.



That's how it superficially looks to me as well, and I was hoping that wasn't the case...

I'm an exceptionally bad boxer (in my opinion) yet I'd view that entry as a gift - solid tense arms don't move quickly so blocking of my kicks would be out, and charging with your whole body is slower than a cross (which I can fairly reliably block or divert) so even I could leisurely pivot and counter with an overhand or a knee.


----------



## marques (Apr 19, 2018)

Wing Chun guy is not used to the chaos. Probably not used to hard contact fights in Wing Chun either.

BJJ works (or worked when it was quite unknown 25 years ago) very well on its own because they were used to fight everyone and not only other BJJ guys. The others did not know what to do against BJJ. This WC guy does not know what to do against the MMA guy.

Martial arts would improve if trained in a more free environment. But probably at the cost of more injuries.

MMA is great against opponents but also quite harsh to the body, isn’t it? Fighters/athletes are being injured competing or training. How many injured people is Tai Chi producing?

Quite messy post. To summarise, (1) MMA is clearly effective at a cost (hard training, injuries) and more suitable to young people. “Ineffective” martial arts may not produce good fighters, but healthy people (with overconfidence on their skills sometimes) and suitable to old people. (2) “Ineffective” martial arts may become better in fighting just with more and better fighting training. Which is better?


----------



## macher (Apr 19, 2018)

marques said:


> Wing Chun guy is not used to the chaos. Probably not used to hard contact fights in Wing Chun either.
> 
> BJJ works (or worked when it was quite unknown 25 years ago) very well on its own because they were used to fight everyone and not only other BJJ guys. The others did not know what to do against BJJ. This WC guy does not know what to do against the MMA guy.
> 
> ...



What about for self defense? Not talking about against another trained MA’ist.

Most I would say including myself practice MA for self defense.

If a Wing Chun practitioner can’t handle himself against a regular Joe then there’s something wrong. My view is sparring and incorporating maybe boxing into it. You can spar at 30-50% and you’ll be ok.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 19, 2018)

macher said:


> What about for self defense? Not talking about against another trained MA’ist.
> 
> Most I would say including myself practice MA for self defense.
> 
> If a Wing Chun practitioner can’t handle himself against a regular Joe then there’s something wrong. My view is sparring and incorporating maybe boxing into it. You can spar at 30-50% and you’ll be ok.



It depends how you rate the threat of self defence situation.

If it is more dangerous than a MMA fight then it should be MMA plus.

If it is less. Do less.

The issue is self defence people are not consistent with their logic here. And will cherry pick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 19, 2018)

drop bear said:


> self defence people.


If you 

- are interested in sex, you should just tell people that you are interested in sex. You should not tell people that you want to carry on the human race.
- want to learn how to fight, you should just tell people that you want to learn how to fight. You should not tell people that you learn how to defense yourself.


----------



## macher (Apr 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you
> 
> - are interested in sex, you should just tell people that you are interested in sex. You should not tell people that you want to carry on the human race.
> - want to learn how to fight, you should just tell people that you want to learn how to fight. You should not tell people that you learn how to defense yourself.



Learning how to defend yourself and learning how to fight is the same thing per se. I already knew how to fight before MA. No I wasn’t a pro or amateur fighter. I wasn’t a skilled fighter and not even that good. 

Even though I knew how to fight before MA what MA offers is how to protect yourself in different situations. Such as suprise attacks as an example etc. Even if you know how to fight knowing techniques and such is very helpful.


----------



## jkdgenius (Apr 20, 2018)

Is it the martial art and history behind it you enjoy doing or actually wanting to train in most effective fighting methods for practical Street fighting? Or are you looking for both of the above? I think this is the only thing you need to consider, as in my opinion it always comes down to the fighter not the style! I know more boxers that would be more effective in a street fight than most martial artists that I know (and I know a lot), but on the other hand, a select few martial artists I know are incredibly talented fighters and I'd not like to meet them in a street fighting scenario!! Haha... So I think the video is a simple example of one guy not being prepared for such a fight and the other being prepared and comfortable due to his training and personal ability. Just my opinion


----------



## macher (Apr 20, 2018)

jkdgenius said:


> Is it the martial art and history behind it you enjoy doing or actually wanting to train in most effective fighting methods for practical Street fighting? Or are you looking for both of the above? I think this is the only thing you need to consider, as in my opinion it always comes down to the fighter not the style! I know more boxers that would be more effective in a street fight than most martial artists that I know (and I know a lot), but on the other hand, a select few martial artists I know are incredibly talented fighters and I'd not like to meet them in a street fighting scenario!! Haha... So I think the video is a simple example of one guy not being prepared for such a fight and the other being prepared and comfortable due to his training and personal ability. Just my opinion




I agree. I tested a co worker of mine and pushed him hard and he froze.


----------



## jkdgenius (Apr 20, 2018)

macher said:


> I agree. I tested a co worker of mine and pushed him hard and he froze.


It's crazy how when tested a lot of training goes right out the window! I remember sparring a friend who'd been training in steel wire mantis Kung Fu for 5 years. He was amazingly well conditioned and forearms were, well, like steel but when we sparred I took a few hits but managed to lock him up quite quickly, at which point he froze


----------



## jkdgenius (Apr 20, 2018)

This made me laugh with Master Wong


----------



## marques (Apr 22, 2018)

macher said:


> What about for self defense? Not talking about against another trained MA’ist.
> 
> Most I would say including myself practice MA for self defense.
> 
> If a Wing Chun practitioner can’t handle himself against a regular Joe then there’s something wrong. My view is sparring and incorporating maybe boxing into it. You can spar at 30-50% and you’ll be ok.


Many martial arts training are not preparing people for the average Joe neither for a trained opponent. Many martial arts are preparing people to overcome someone less skilled in the same style (if there is training with resistance or competition).

Sometimes training makes people worse defending themselves because they start confusing training conditions (false expectations) and reality (unpredictable, unsafe...), or freezing between the instinct and learned skill.

I have seen high ranked people or champions on their style giving any or very little challenge on sparring (fortunately have found the opposite as well). Just because they were predictable and I was deceptive. Having said that, I have seen some becoming gradually, and quickly, more effective after some light free sparring as well. I believe effectiveness is more about training method than styles.

Light/slow sparring is still relatively safe and teaches what nothing else can do. If the objective is self defence, the scenario can be more creative than one to one, face to face, in a ring. One can start from a bad position, needing to protect someone else... The thing is advancing from cooperation to some degree of opposition and see/explore what works better.


----------



## geezer (Apr 22, 2018)

jkdgenius said:


> This made me laugh with Master Wong



Master Wong?


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 22, 2018)

Sifu Fernandez has an open challenge out to this guy. So far, no response.


----------



## jkdgenius (Apr 23, 2018)

geezer said:


> Master Wong?


Yeah?? He's explaining his opinion on the fight...


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 23, 2018)

jkdgenius said:


> Yeah?? He's explaining his opinion on the fight...



So does Mark Phillips at Londons Wing Chun, although his is a more serious take on it of course.


----------



## TMA17 (Apr 23, 2018)

Hahah Master Wong is hilarious.  I agree with him on this.


----------



## geezer (Apr 23, 2018)

jkdgenius said:


> Yeah?? He's explaining his opinion on the fight...



Ha! I had just a couple of minutes to try to catch up on this thread and I thought that was the same clip used in the OP so I didn't watch it again. Should have. --Sorry. 

Actually, I agree with you. This was one of Master Wong's better videos!


----------



## Danny T (Apr 23, 2018)

jkdgenius said:


>


A lot of truth here by Wong.
A lot that I agree with him on in his narrative here.


----------

