# Wing Chun As An Art



## wayfaring (Aug 15, 2017)

So I may be in a different place right now because of a positive experience exchanging and practicing with other lineage wing chun practitioners, but my feelings are that when we all join together especially online it trends more towards being critical of one another's lineage or practice, especially on the forums.  Shoot, maybe I'm the first offender because of my grappling background and strong opinions regarding keeping it real.  

What I am wondering now though, is how can we continue the practice of this phenomenal art and build it together to ensure it does not become lost amongst the 300 person BJJ schools and fight team MMA schools that are flooding the landscape?  

Any ideas how we can avoid becoming 90 and sitting around drinking tea b1tch1ng at one another about who has or had the "real" technique?  All while schools are failing?

Any ideas on how to less politicize the art?

Any ideas on how to collaborate more together?  I mean even Bullshido had the Bullshido gatherings.  And they are more critical than all of y'all combined.

I've kind of felt the conversation about Wing Chun has been pretty dead.  Around a lot of places.  Here.  Other forums.  In general.  

In BJJ the conversation is kind of alive.   People travel, meet others they never met, connect quickly, train together, compete together.  There are competitions, there is an occasional training partner of mine who started a business that is basically Le Tai grappling competitions around the country. Called FightToWin.   Youtube explodes with video.  Social media explodes with attention.  People are writing BJJ phone apps to see technique on mobile.  I've got 3 high quality competition photos from BJJ comps right now today hitting my social media.  

This very honestly makes me very very sad.

Wing Chun is a very beautiful close quarter fighting art with rich heritage, culture, philosophy.  It also does not contain the "meat head" philosophy and attitude that is very common among mma fighters.  It should be appealing to the masses.   It should have the culture to sit with kings and the reality to fight with the gate guards.  But it doesn't seem to be playing out that way.

Are we stuck in some patterns here?  Are we looping poor community behavior?

How to fix people?  

I'm not perfect but I'd rather start this conversation than another one about grappling and wing chun or boxing and wing chun or mma and wing chun, even though all those are important too because of our world.


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 15, 2017)

In real life, with other actual Wing Chun players (not YouTube experts or people who were anti-Wing Chun to begin with), I generally have good experiences and exchanges. It's the internet where things fall apart. 

I feel like maybe 10-15% of the problem is Wing Chun players who are dug into their pai being the "one pure/greatest" and the rest is trolling by people who don't even do Wing Chun, but for some reason have strong conviction about it. Some of them trained through Si Lim Tao and others just read forums, watched YouTube and/or are repeating back what someone else has said. 

We can't fix the internet. I've thought of creating a private, closed forum for Wing Chun people to discuss Wing Chun and it might go better, but in the end, this isn't something to be done on-line. I think this forum handles it about as well as it can be.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2017)

wayfaring said:


> In BJJ the conversation is kind of alive.   People travel, meet others they never met, connect quickly, train together, *compete together*.  There are competitions, there is an occasional training partner of mine who started a business that is basically Le Tai grappling competitions around the country. Called FightToWin.   Youtube explodes with video.  Social media explodes with attention.  People are writing BJJ phone apps to see technique on mobile.  I've got 3 high quality competition photos from BJJ comps right now today hitting my social media.
> 
> .



That's it right there!  We discussed this on another thread recently.   All the various lineage disputes about who got what right or who missed out on learning X or who has the best "central strategy", etc are really just pure theory when it comes right down to it.  What counts is what works.  And Wing Chun has no format to show what works.   On the other thread we talked about how Wing Chun should be getting more involved in San Da style competitions or holding their own San Da competitions.   We've had various "Chi Sau gatherings" (though mainly in Britian) that seem to help, but Chi Sau doesn't prove squat.  Chi Sau isn't fighting.  But one lineage will certainly develop respect for another if they regularly kick butt in some kind of competitive fighting format that encourages the use of actual Wing Chun technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 15, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> I've thought of creating a private, closed forum for Wing Chun people to discuss Wing Chun and it might go better,...


If you only want to discuss WC principle/technique from the WC point of view, you will limit yourself big time.

In a Judo forum, one Judo guy asked about a throw that you use

- one hand to pull your opponent's arm,
- one hand to press on his knee,
- spin your body and take him down.

After several months of discussion, no Judo guys could explain what throw that is. If you only allow Judo guys to discuss the throwing art, you can only discuss subject in Judo boundary and not beyond.

The following clip (1.30 - 2.20) shows the "hand break" throw that was discussed in that Judo forum.

If non-Judo guys can contribute information in a Judo forum, non-WC guys (or cross training guys) can contribute information in a WC forum as well.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 15, 2017)

Not a wing chun man, but as someone with an interest and desire to see more constructive discussion I'd say it has to start with getting off line and getting people together to train. Use the net to connect people rather than look down on those who do things differently. 

Competition would help a bit in fostering more camaraderie but in being an "art" it will always have those who are "above" such things. Plus the potential for harm to reputation will keep many away.

I think combat sports unite people under a single ideal of excelling on the sport. Traditional martial arts are just too fuzzy to have a single banner to unite under.


----------



## Vajramusti (Aug 15, 2017)

wayfaring said:


> So I may be in a different place right now because of a positive experience exchanging and practicing with other lineage wing chun practitioners, but my feelings are that when we all join together especially online it trends more towards being critical of one another's lineage or practice, especially on the forums.  Shoot, maybe I'm the first offender because of my grappling background and strong opinions regarding keeping it real.
> 
> What I am wondering now though, is how can we continue the practice of this phenomenal art and build it together to ensure it does not become lost amongst the 300 person BJJ schools and fight team MMA schools that are flooding the landscape?
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------
A different and possibly  minority view;
there are many good Ip Man wing chun
folks in, Macao,Hong Kong,Toronto,Phoenix,
Tempe and Tucson.


----------



## KPM (Aug 15, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------
> A different and possibly  minority view;
> there are many good Ip Man wing chun
> folks in, Macao,Hong Kong,Toronto,Phoenix,
> Tempe and Tucson.



And in Los Angeles, Chicago, Kansas City, Singapore, London, Paris, etc.  What's your point?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2017)

Bjj and MMA gets what it gets because it collaborates. Wing chun doesn't.

someone can walk in to a BJJ school demolish everyone in the room and they will be grateful for the experience. This is because the more often that person comes in to clean house the better that school gets.

It creates a huge shift in the mentality of the style.

Eg. 
Whitsunday Martial Arts


----------



## Bino TWT (Aug 16, 2017)

We came up with the Houston Wing Chun Symposium, where we got different schools from the area to come together and train. It was a big multi-lineage seminar and every Sifu had an opportunity to teach, and everyone participated. 

I personally go to different lineage schools to train with them, and have built a very good relationship with a lot of the Sifu's, instructors, and students in the area. 

I also go cross train with other styles, including the BJJ and MMA guys. If you want to get good, especially for the real world, you have to step outside of your kwoon. 

Coming from a competitive sport combat background, I train my guys like fighters/athletes and we spar quite a bit. Everything is pressure tested.

These are all things that will hopefully help to bring Wing Tsun to the forefront of the martial arts community, in my area at least.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I think combat sports unite people under a single ideal of excelling on the sport. Traditional martial arts are just too fuzzy to have a single banner to unite under.


That's a good point.

If a Karate guy claimed he is better than the other Karate guy in different system, both of them will meet in next Karate tournament to prove who is better. Today, a BJJ guy will never say his ground skill is better than other BJJ guy from a different instructor. They can prove it in the next BJJ tournament as well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> someone can walk in to a BJJ school demolish everyone in the room and they will be grateful for the experience. This is because the more often that person comes in to clean house the better that school gets.


Either BJJ guys may hold higher moral standard that other MA guys have, or the world that you live in is different from the one I live in.

Many years ago, a SC guy demolished everyone in another SC school. That SC school instructor invited this SC guy to his house, served him some tea with glass powder in it. That SC guy had blood came out of his rear end for several months. The MA world can be very ugly, or may be it's just the CMA thing.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Either BJJ guys may hold higher moral standard that other MA guys have, or the world that you live in is different from the one I live in.
> 
> Many years ago, a SC guy demolished everyone in another SC school. That SC school instructor invited this SC guy to his house, served him some tea with glass powder in it. That SC guy had blood came out of his rear end for several months. The MA world can be very ugly, or may be it's just CMA thing.



It is a different standard. They consider everyone in BJJ working towards a cause.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> If a Karate guy claimed he is better than the other Karate guy in different system, both of them will meet in next Karate tournament to prove who is better. Today, a BJJ guy will never say his ground skill is better than other BJJ guy from a different instructor. They can prove it in the next BJJ tournament as well.


To be honest I think the same problems occur in karate. The sport side is maybe 50% of the schools, the rest fall into that fuzzy area of martial artists and are just as likely to talk rather than test. To make excuses rather than risk getting beat publicly. 

But then I'd rather loose a bjj match than s full contact karate/mma fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But then I'd rather loose a bjj match than s full contact karate/mma fight.


That's the advantage of the grappling art. You can take down (or choke out) your opponent over and over and you don't need to hurt him. The striking art just don't have that kind of luxury.


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 16, 2017)

Oh look, a posting specifically about Wing Chun quickly became one about BJJ and MMA and why they are better. Who saw that coming? Oh that's right, me.


----------



## Steve (Aug 16, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> Oh look, a posting specifically about Wing Chun quickly became one about BJJ and MMA and why they are better. Who saw that coming? Oh that's right, me.


The op is about wing chun, and also BJJ and MMA.  When the op introduces the comparison, how can you be surprised by it?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> That's it right there!  We discussed this on another thread recently.   All the various lineage disputes about who got what right or who missed out on learning X or who has the best "central strategy", etc are really just pure theory when it comes right down to it.  What counts is what works.  And Wing Chun has no format to show what works.   On the other thread we talked about how Wing Chun should be getting more involved in San Da style competitions or holding their own San Da competitions.   We've had various "Chi Sau gatherings" (though mainly in Britian) that seem to help, but Chi Sau doesn't prove squat.  Chi Sau isn't fighting.  But one lineage will certainly develop respect for another if they regularly kick butt in some kind of competitive fighting format that encourages the use of actual Wing Chun technique.



I've been training WT for just about a year and a half now on the side. (I have to drive 3 hours round trip, with classes that only intermittently line up with my schedule, so I'm not as far into the art as I would like to be.)

One of the senior students in our training group has been training a lot longer than I have and is about 10 ranks higher than me in the WT system. He's got lots of good technical knowledge and I learn good stuff from him whenever we train together.

We've had some discussions in which he claims that sparring is only good for sport competition and not for street self-defense, which is the purpose of WT. So based on that, I'd say that he doesn't spar. Meanwhile, even with my limited WT experience, I have used WT effectively in sparring with practitioners of Muay Thai, Boxing, MMA, JKD, and Capoeira (including a couple of current or retired pro fighters). The Sihing in question may be technically superior to me in WT, but if we both had to use our skills in a self-defense situation or a real fight I know which of us I would bet on being successful.

WC originally made its reputation in Hong Kong largely through challenge matches . It's strange to see so many WC/WT/VC practitioners refuse sparring on the grounds that the art is too deadly for anything but life-or-death combat.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 16, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's strange to see so many WC/WT/VC practitioners refuse sparring on the grounds that the art is too deadly for anything but life-or-death combat.



I have to take issue with this comment, as I believe it is not an accurate representation of the real message or real reasons why someone may not be a fan of sparring.

Rarely does anyone but the truly delusional make the tired old claim that their method is "too deadly" for sparring.  The accusation of that claim is itself a tired old claim.

It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring.  Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive.  Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring.  I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.

These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective.  As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way.  Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not.  It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring.

Grappling methods have a training advantage in this regard.  Their methods can be used in a less-than-destructive way, and still be effective.  Striking methods are at a training disadvantage in that regard.  When they are done in a less-than-destructive way, they are often no longer effective.  It becomes easy for the sparring partner to ignore the technique with which they were just hit.

Sparring can still be a useful exercise, but it depends on what someone is hoping to get from it.  At the same time, it can undermine some important skills as well.  It can train someone to habitually execute their methods in a non-destructive way, undermining the very purpose of the training.  So people make an evaluation as to the relative worth.  They may develop some skills at the detriment of others, and they may decide that is a worthwhile trade off, that the positives outweigh the negatives.  Or they may feel that the trade off is not worth it, that the negatives outweigh the positives.  That is a judgement that everyone needs to make for themselves.

But it is a gross oversimplification to say that people claim their stuff is "too deadly" for sparring.  It is almost always an issue with much more nuance than that.  Ive never actually heard someone make that claim.


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring.  Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive.  Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring.  I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.
> 
> These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective.  As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way.  Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not.  It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring.
> 
> .



To some extent, that is a cop out.  I don't buy it.  Boxing is pretty darn destructive as well if done bare-knuckle, yet they manage to put on gloves and spar realistically and effectively just fine.   Your martial art should not be a "weapon of mass destruction".  There are plenty of times when defending yourself that you would be in worlds of trouble if you "destroyed" the other person.   Drunk Uncle Ed at the New Year's eve party would be one example.  A teenager trying to pick your pocket would be another.  If your martial art does not allow for "dialing down the setting" to something other than "kill", then maybe you need to look for another martial art ("you in general, not "you" in particular Michael).


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I have to take issue with this comment, as I believe it is not an accurate representation of the real message or real reasons why someone may not be a fan of sparring.
> 
> Rarely does anyone but the truly delusional make the tired old claim that their method is "too deadly" for sparring.  The accusation of that claim is itself a tired old claim.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with a lot of that. Every training method has its weaknesses, including each of the many forms of sparring. Personally I think the best approach is to find complementary training methods so that the strengths of one can balance out the weaknesses of another. I respect many martial artists who reject sparring entirely, but I disagree with them.

You are right that grappling methods, in general, allow you to spar safely with more intensity than striking methods. (With some exceptions. For example, there are throwing methods that can inflict plenty of damage if you apply with full damaging intent every time.) I disagree that the choices for most strikes are limited to "hit hard enough to inflict real injury" vs "hit so light that your sparring partner can just ignore the shot." There is a huge range of gradations of force possible which allow the recipient of a blow to respect the impact without being seriously damaged.

As far as the "too deadly to spar" argument, I do see it periodically, although not always phrased in that exact way.

Here's a quote from our own Mook Jong Man. He doesn't dismiss *all* sparring, but he does explicitly say that *full-contact* sparring in WC is impossible because the participants would end up dead or in the hospital:


mook jong man said:


> Full contact Wing Chun is a fallacy anyway , if I am using full contact I will be moving in with my full body mass.
> If I do a double palm strike to your head , you will either die or you will be going to hospital with a broken neck.
> 
> You can put helmets and gear on , and have contact , but it won't be full contact , it will be semi contact or people will be going to the hospital.
> ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2017)

Even in the striking art, you can still make the "partial sparring" to be fun.

For example, if you can hit (or kick) my body within 20 punches (or 20 kicks), you win that round. Otherwise I win that round. Test it for 15 rounds and record for the result for that day. Keep daily record for 1 year and see your progress.


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 16, 2017)

This is a good argument for why sparring is a good thing to do, but not the be-all, end-all goal, objective, and test of a martial art. If the martial art becomes about sparring, then it ceases to be a martial art and has become a sport. That doesn't mean that sparring isn't useful in martial arts, just that it shouldn't define them.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 16, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I actually agree with a lot of that. Every training method has its weaknesses, including each of the many forms of sparring. Personally I think the best approach is to find complementary training methods so that the strengths of one can balance out the weaknesses of another. I respect many martial artists who reject sparring entirely, but I disagree with them.
> 
> You are right that grappling methods, in general, allow you to spar safely with more intensity than striking methods. (With some exceptions. For example, there are throwing methods that can inflict plenty of damage if you apply with full damaging intent every time.) I disagree that the choices for most strikes are limited to "hit hard enough to inflict real injury" vs "hit so light that your sparring partner can just ignore the shot." There is a huge range of gradations of force possible which allow the recipient of a blow to respect the impact without being seriously damaged.
> 
> ...


I'm good with this.  I think the real issue is to recognize that it is a nuanced issue.  I think that is what often gets overlooked, and an over-simplified statement emphasizes where there can be misunderstanding.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> To some extent, that is a cop out.  I don't buy it.  Boxing is pretty darn destructive as well if done bare-knuckle, yet they manage to put on gloves and spar realistically and effectively just fine.   Your martial art should not be a "weapon of mass destruction".  There are plenty of times when defending yourself that you would be in worlds of trouble if you "destroyed" the other person.   Drunk Uncle Ed at the New Year's eve party would be one example.  A teenager trying to pick your pocket would be another.  If your martial art does not allow for "dialing down the setting" to something other than "kill", then maybe you need to look for another martial art ("you in general, not "you" in particular Michael).


I think you need to go back and re-read my post.  I suspect you have fundamentally overlooked or misunderstood something.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> This is a good argument for why sparring is a good thing to do, but not the be-all, end-all goal, objective, and test of a martial art. If the martial art becomes about sparring, then it ceases to be a martial art and has become a sport. That doesn't mean that sparring isn't useful in martial arts, just that it shouldn't define them.



If we looked at wrestling. Which is probably the oldest martial art. Its concept of sport is very important to its development.

And there are numerous cultures that wrestled in preparation for war.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> Oh look, a posting specifically about Wing Chun quickly became one about BJJ and MMA and why they are better. Who saw that coming? Oh that's right, me.



This is half the problem. Instead of looking at what already works and just incorporating ideas you like.

It becomes this pride issue.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I have to take issue with this comment, as I believe it is not an accurate representation of the real message or real reasons why someone may not be a fan of sparring.
> 
> Rarely does anyone but the truly delusional make the tired old claim that their method is "too deadly" for sparring.  The accusation of that claim is itself a tired old claim.
> 
> ...



Well. You can grapple in a manner that really hurts people. Just people choose not to.

And that is even within the rules of sparring. Let alone doing some no rules really trying to cripple someone.

So grapplers do tend to dial down their techniques as well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> Oh look, a posting specifically about Wing Chun quickly became one about BJJ and MMA and why they are better. Who saw that coming? Oh that's right, me.


All the WC discussion can go into 2 different directions:

1. What WC have - Tang, Bong, Fu, center line, ...
2. What WC doesn't have - hook punch, roundhouse kick, grip fight, clinch, throw, ground game, ...

The roundhouse kick will require "body rotation". The moment that you add it into the WC system, The WC system will be "evolved". Some people like to see the evolution of WC. Some people do not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Well. You can grapple in a manner that really hurts people. Just people choose not to.


This is true.

When you grab on one of your opponent's legs and hook his other leg off the ground, he will fall with his back (or head) on the ground. It can be a knock out throw. For the safety of sport, when you throw your opponent like this, you will grab on his jacket, pull on your lapel hold, and allow him to land on the ground slowly, and safely.


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 16, 2017)

You know, John, looking at your profile I would love an opportunity to train with you, work out with you, meet and talk with you. I'm interested in what you do, I recognize your credentials, and I'm sure that I could learn a lot from you that would make me a better martial artist. If the opportunity ever presented itself and you would have me, I would sincerely and respectfully value the experience.

But, I'm getting weary of the dismissive statements that you feel compelled to make about the system I study and teach any time someone brings it up. Maybe that's unreasonable of me. It is the internet, I suppose I should know better than to expect different from it at this point. Why are Wing Chun forums dead or flat? Because they are over-run with dissenters who chose to do something else and I guess are trying to save us from ourselves or something? I don't know. It does get tiring, though. I don't suppose that you see it that way and even if you did, there are 1,000 people ready to take your place if you were to ease up, so I guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> You know, John, looking at your profile I would love an opportunity to train with you, work out with you, meet and talk with you. I'm interested in what you do, I recognize your credentials, and I'm sure that I could learn a lot from you that would make me a better martial artist. If the opportunity ever presented itself and you would have me, I would sincerely and respectfully value the experience.
> 
> But, I'm getting weary of the dismissive statements that you feel compelled to make about the system I study and teach any time someone brings it up. Maybe that's unreasonable of me. It is the internet, I suppose I should know better than to expect different from it at this point. Why are Wing Chun forums dead or flat? Because they are over-run with dissenters who chose to do something else and I guess are trying to save us from ourselves or something? I don't know. It does get tiring, though. I don't suppose that you see it that way and even if you did, there are 1,000 people ready to take your place if you were to ease up, so I guess it doesn't matter.



Then start less dismissive threads. Why is problems with the internet always someone else's fault?

Disagreement is one thing. But you are claiming your view is right here by default.


----------



## KPM (Aug 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I think you need to go back and re-read my post.  I suspect you have fundamentally overlooked or misunderstood something.



I did.  As I said already....I think to _some extent_ it is a cop out.  You seem to be trying to justify some people's claim that they don't spar because the most effective part of their art would be of no use.  That is a cop out.  Effective fighting is about controlling distance, having a good defense, having an effective offense....being about to hit without being hit, etc.  Techniques don't have to be deadly to do all of that.  So I agree with a lot of what you wrote.  But there is still that grain of justification for not sparring from a traditional mindset.  Is it subconscious maybe?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> I did.  As I said already....I think to _some extent_ it is a cop out.  You seem to be trying to justify some people's claim that they don't spar because the most effective part of their art would be of no use.  That is a cop out.  Effective fighting is about controlling distance, having a good defense, having an effective offense....being about to hit without being hit, etc.  Techniques don't have to be deadly to do all of that.  So I agree with a lot of what you wrote.  But there is still that grain of justification for not sparring from a traditional mindset.  Is it subconscious maybe?


Nope, yer missing it.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 17, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> But, I'm getting weary of the dismissive statements that you feel compelled to make about the system I study and teach any time someone brings it up. Maybe that's unreasonable of me. It is the internet, I suppose I should know better than to expect different from it at this point. Why are Wing Chun forums dead or flat? Because they are over-run with dissenters who chose to do something else and I guess are trying to save us from ourselves or something? I don't know. It does get tiring, though.



Good post


----------



## KPM (Aug 17, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Nope, yer missing it.



_"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.

These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."

---_Sorry.  Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me.  What am I missing?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> _"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.
> 
> These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."
> 
> ---_Sorry.  Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me. What am I missing?


The whole message.  You missed it.

Look, whether you like it or not, there are some legitimate reasons why some people are less than enthusiastic about sparring.  It just isn't the end-all, be-all to develop combat and defense skills.  You do what you want, what makes sense to you.  Others will do likewise.

But if you want to be dismissive and wave it away as a "cop-out" then I guess any discussion we might have been able to have has already ended.  There really is no point to it.

Good day.


----------



## KPM (Aug 17, 2017)

^^^^^^ Annnnndddddd....there's the "cop out" I was referring to!     Your "legitimate reasons" are still in the realm of "I'm too deadly to spar".....according to your prior statement that I copied just above.   Again....subconscious?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> _"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.
> 
> These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."
> 
> ---_Sorry.  Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me. What am I missing?



I specifically dont do this by the way. I dial back head kicks after just nailing too many guys. They are more than welcome to eat my soft kick and try to drive a counter back as if they suddenly have a chin of iron.

This means I throw the head kick and am looking for the counter. Rather than throwing the head kick and expecting them to drop.

I mean if they drop and I have footworked myself from a counter that never comes. Who cares.

If they counter from a kick that did not have as much effect as I thought it should. Bigger issue there.

And look if they eat a head kick I dont think there is much benifit practicing falling over.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^^ Annnnndddddd....there's the "cop out" I was referring to!     Your "legitimate reasons" are still in the realm of "I'm too deadly to spar".....according to your prior statement that I copied just above.   Again....subconscious?


Huh?  Are you still talking about this?  I just can't take you seriously.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Here's a quote from our own Mook Jong Man. He doesn't dismiss *all* sparring, but he does explicitly say that *full-contact* sparring in WC is impossible because the participants would end up dead or in the hospital:



I don't think I can buy this.

If it were true, some of the more high profile people like Emin Boztepe who claim 300+ real fights would have left a trail of corpses and almost certainly be serving lengthy sentences in goal. William Cheung would have died in 1986 and either Draheim or Mazza a decade later, depending on whose version of events you believe.

People claim the style is deadly, but many Wing Chun people who end up in fights fail to even moderately damage their attackers, let alone kill them.

Not to diss Wing Chun, but to call out ridiculous claims which deservedly lead to the style being dissed.

That said, there was a case late last century where some mouth boxing ended up with two well known Australian Wing Chun instructors getting into it, and one ending up in hospital. But he got out pretty quick and went on to teach for another couple of decades.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 18, 2017)

I think the internet allows the type of trash talk that would never happen if the participants were in the same room. And then they aren't ever going ot want to be in the same room because of what they said on the internet.

I've only met one person in RL that I met on the web, HFY practitioner duende / Alex Oropeza from KFO, at his instigation when he visited Sydney. We had an excellent few hours chatting and comparing techniques under the railway at Circular Quay on a rainy morning. It was a great experience for me.


----------



## anerlich (Aug 18, 2017)

My first Kung Fu instructor, David Crook, went out of his way to create relationships with fellow MA instructors, invite them and their students to his club to train, and generally foster good relationships. He also ran an annual weekend camp for a good while, where participants would get to see the approaches and forms of other styles, and make contacts and friends. He lived/lives in Canberra, a fairly small city. When a new instructor came to town and set up shop, he would call them up, welcome them to Canberra, invite them to contact him if he could help them in any way. He even hosted one guy to run his own classes in David's school just to help him get established and form a student body of his own. This is pretty much unheard of in Wing Chun these days, and it was rare when I was training with him back in the late 1970s.

Be like David.

At the risk of offending some who don't also study a grappling art (too bad), I too find BJJ a much more social and cohesive/supportive environment. Your opponents on the mat become your friends off it. Most instructors don't have a problem with you training with "rival instructors" at seminars or even regularly, and hungrily lap up anything you learned there and have to show them. You can't tell other people their approaches are wrong, learned from video (which in BJJ is not necessarily a bad thing), or their instructor is a fraud if they are beating you on the competition mats. I'be been invited to run classes at "rival" schools regularly to give their students a taste of a different approach. And vice versa. The ideas of "polluting" or "watering down" your Jiu Jitsu by training with someone from another organisation is rightly regarded as nonsensical.

I've made maybe two or three Wing Chun friends in RL outside of my instructor's organisation, and one of those only because he also does Jiu Jitsu.

I've made dozens of friends and acquaintances through Jiu Jitsu, half your day at a competition is spent talking to people you've trained with at various places and not seen for a while. Going to an IBJJF ref's course and chatting with the "rival instructors" during breaks is always fascinating.

Too bad if you haven't experienced this in martial arts, but the reason so many people are bringing up the differences between interclub and inter-organisation relationships in Wing Chun and BJJ is because they actually are REMARKABLE.


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Huh?  Are you still talking about this?  I just can't take you seriously.



Then you seem to be missing MY point!


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2017)

Valid reasons to not spar:

1.  I'm an old fart and don't heal or recover nearly as well as I did in my younger years.  So its not worth risking injury for me.
2.  I just don't have the competitive nature or desire to actually try and hurt someone.  I feel it is sufficient to learn from my classmates and colleagues that do spar and incorporate their insights into my training as much as possible.
3.  I'm afraid of getting hurt (regardless of age) and am content to follow #2 above.

Not valid reasons to avoid sparring (cop outs):

1.  My martial art is for self-defense only.  Sparring is not beneficial for what we do.
2.  My martial art is too dangerous to use in sparring.
3.  My martial art has too many moves that I couldn't use in sparring, so sparring is not beneficial for what we do.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 18, 2017)

Anyway. not just sparring but the concept of an open mat might be a thing to look at.

open mat bjj sessions | my Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you only want to discuss WC principle/technique from the WC point of view, you will limit yourself big time.
> 
> In a Judo forum, one Judo guy asked about a throw that you use
> 
> ...


Interesting. The throw in that video is very similar to our "Drop" (I think the Japanese name is Sumi Otoshi, but that's reaching far back in my memory).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> _"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.
> 
> These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."
> 
> ---_Sorry.  Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me. What am I missing?


I think I get his point in this. Let me give an example from outside WC. One of the techniques in NGA (the art I teach) is descriptively called "Third Set Wrist Technique"...because it's a wrist technique in the 3rd set, of course.

Anyway, this is a lock that binds the small bone in the hand (pinky finger side). There's a very short distance between feeling the pain and actually breaking the hand (the only lock-related breaks I've seen in training were all from this technique). If this were used in sparring, without the intention of actually breaking the bone, it has to be slowed down as you get near the bind, and the opponent has to acknowledge that the lock is in process. If they don't acknowledge it, they can maintain speed (ignoring that you've slowed down for their safety) and escape it easily. If you don't let them escape, there's a very real chance you'll accidentally break that small bone (this occurred during some police training some years ago).

So, techniques like that can't reliably be used in sparring. There's just not a good non-destructive application that will work at speed (there's a takedown, but if the opponent resists it can turn quickly into the destruction).

So, while that doesn't mean we can't spar, it does mean that techniques like that one won't be part of free sparring.


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2017)

^^^^^ I agree Gerry.  But as I noted before and you seem to agree, the fact that you have to "dial back" certain techniques is  not a legitimate reason not to spar.   Michael went on about "legitmate reasons" not to spar and the only example he gave was this idea of having to dial back techniques.  That's why I said it thought it was a "cop out" and that I agreed with most of what he was saying but not all and then asked him if I was missing something.  Rather than just explaining what he actual thought were "legitimate reasons" not to spar and point out that this idea of having to dial back techniques was not what he really meant as a "legitimate reason"....he seemed to just miss my point and declare that I wasn't to be taken seriously!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ I agree Gerry.  But as I noted before and you seem to agree, the fact that you have to "dial back" certain techniques is  not a legitimate reason not to spar.   Michael went on about "legitmate reasons" not to spar and the only example he gave was this idea of having to dial back techniques.  That's why I said it thought it was a "cop out" and that I agreed with most of what he was saying but not all and then asked him if I was missing something.  Rather than just explaining what he actual thought were "legitimate reasons" not to spar and point out that this idea of having to dial back techniques was not what he really meant as a "legitimate reason"....he seemed to just miss my point and declare that I wasn't to be taken seriously!


I agree with that concept. Having to dial back (or even avoid) entire sections of an art doesn't entirely preclude sparring. We still spar, but know that wrist locks and the like are simply not used there. Sometimes we get into trouble (in a sparring-appropriate way) when we automatically go for a technique we can't use in that context, and have to abandon it partway in. Of course, this creates a great opening for our opponent. But it doesn't make the sparring useless, and can even help us get better at recovering when something fails (which is bound to happen some percentage of the time in either "live" training or a defense situation).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. The throw in that video is very similar to our "Drop" (I think the Japanese name is Sumi Otoshi, but that's reaching far back in my memory).


The Judo "Sumi Otoshi" is the same as the Chinese wrestling "擰(Ning) - Wheeling" that you use both arms to twist on your opponent's shoulders to take him down.






The "hand break" is to use your hand to do your leg job so you can still have both legs on the ground for balance. IMO, it's Judo "Ashi Guruma" but you use your hand instead of your leg.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think I get his point in this. Let me give an example from outside WC. One of the techniques in NGA (the art I teach) is descriptively called "Third Set Wrist Technique"...because it's a wrist technique in the 3rd set, of course.
> 
> Anyway, this is a lock that binds the small bone in the hand (pinky finger side). There's a very short distance between feeling the pain and actually breaking the hand (the only lock-related breaks I've seen in training were all from this technique). If this were used in sparring, without the intention of actually breaking the bone, it has to be slowed down as you get near the bind, and the opponent has to acknowledge that the lock is in process. If they don't acknowledge it, they can maintain speed (ignoring that you've slowed down for their safety) and escape it easily. If you don't let them escape, there's a very real chance you'll accidentally break that small bone (this occurred during some police training some years ago).
> 
> ...



Yeah. Elbows. Ankle locks. Suplexes.  There are a few things thrown into that category. If you are desperate you just take the position and move on.

I mean Hoe Noes I don't get acknowledged for my super dangerous sparring move. 

I still don't see that as a big deal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2017)

In the above "leg break" vs. "hand break" example, anything that you can do with your

- leg can be done with your hand.
- hand can be done with your leg.

WC has "sticky hand" training. Should WC also have "sticky leg" training as well?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the above "leg break" vs. "hand break" example, anything that you can do with your
> 
> - leg can be done with your hand.
> - hand can be done with your leg.
> ...


It does. Chi Gerk.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It does. Chi Gerk.


Not much WC discussion in this area yet. Those are all useful skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Judo "Sumi Otoshi" is the same as the Chinese wrestling "擰(Ning) - Wheeling" that you use both arms to twist on your opponent's shoulders to take him down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I went back to my notes, and somehow I have Sumi Otoshi linked to that technique. Clearly (from that video) Sumi Otoshi is a variant of our "Two-hand Wheel Throw".

In any case, our "Drop" is very similar to the "hand break". In the aiki version, we have the weight shifted far to their heels. In the ju version (my terms), it's closer to the video you posted.


drop bear said:


> Yeah. Elbows. Ankle locks. Suplexes.  There are a few things thrown into that category. If you are desperate you just take the position and move on.
> 
> I mean Hoe Noes I don't get acknowledged for my super dangerous sparring move.
> 
> I still don't see that as a big deal.


And it isn't. That's kind of the point. If you pull one of those out in sparring, you abandon it (and probably get hit for the opening you created), and then you move on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> Valid reasons to not spar:
> 
> 1.  I'm an old fart and don't heal or recover nearly as well as I did in my younger years.  So its not worth risking injury for me.
> 2.  I just don't have the competitive nature or desire to actually try and hurt someone.  I feel it is sufficient to learn from my classmates and colleagues that do spar and incorporate their insights into my training as much as possible.
> ...


Ah,  see the problem now.  You ignored a big chunk of what i had said in that earlier post.  There is a lot of context there, in that overlooked portion.  Go back and read it again.  Specifically the portion where i say that sparring can still be a valuable training tool, and go on to elaborate about how people decide for themselves if they feel the pros outweigh the cons.  

Contex matters.


----------



## KPM (Aug 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ah,  see the problem now.  You ignored a big chunk of what i had said in that earlier post.  There is a lot of context there, in that overlooked portion.  Go back and read it again.  Specifically the portion where i say that sparring can still be a valuable training tool, and go on to elaborate about how people decide for themselves if they feel the pros outweigh the cons.
> 
> Contex matters.



Which was why I asked if I was missing something before you dismissed me as being unworthy of your conversation.  Because, again, the only example of a "legitmate  reason" not to spar that you provided was that of having to dial back technique.  Was that not what you meant?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> 1.  I'm an old fart and don't heal or recover nearly as well as I did in my younger years.  So its not worth risking injury for me.


If you

- don't spar when you are in your 20, you are not smart enough.
- still spar when you are in your 80, you are also not smart enough.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> Which was why I asked if I was missing something before you dismissed me as being unworthy of your conversation.  Because, again, the only example of a "legitmate  reason" not to spar that you provided was that of having to dial back technique.  Was that not what you meant?


I was pointing out, and I believe I clarified this at the end of my post, that this is a nuanced issue.  It isn't all black-and-white.  I was describing some of the nuances. There are reasons why some people see less value in sparring than other people do.

If you come back with a dismissive attitude and tell me my reasons are just a "cop out", then you are not worthy of my time and further discussion.

If you like sparring, do it.  I never tell you not to.

If you can't understand that other people have reasons for seeing it differently, and you can't disagree with a modicum of respect for a different point of view, then we cannot have a discussion, or even share ideas in passing even if a deeper discussion does not build.

You should do what you feel is best for you.  And you should respect other points of view, even if you disagree with them.  Or you will continue to struggle to get any respect to from the other members of the forum.


----------



## KPM (Aug 19, 2017)

*I was pointing out, and I believe I clarified this at the end of my post, that this is a nuanced issue.  It isn't all black-and-white.  I was describing some of the nuances. There are reasons why some people see less value in sparring than other people do.*

---You described one nuance and implied that it was a good reason not to spar.  It didn't seem like a good one to me, so I point that out and was seeking some clarification. 


*If you come back with a dismissive attitude and tell me my reasons are just a "cop out", then you are not worthy of my time and further discussion.*

---Well, sorry that you are so sensitive to someone questioning your somewhat ambiguous post.  And very ironic that you are accusing me of having a "dismissive attitude" when you are the one that has declared that I "wasn't to be taken seriously" and just stated that I am "not worthy of your time and further discussion."   I just questioned one point that you made, and you have come back and dismissed me and anything I have to say entirely!!!  And you want to talk about a "dismissive attitude"????  


*
If you can't understand that other people have reasons for seeing it differently,*

----Well, I provide more examples of good reasons not to spar than you did.  And I noted that I agreed with what you posted except for that one idea. 


* and you can't disagree with a modicum of respect for a different point of view, then we cannot have a discussion, or even share ideas in passing even if a deeper discussion does not build.*

---So you are so sensitive that you think someone telling you that "dialing back techniques" as a reason not to spar is a cop out (meaning an invalid reason)....that you think you have been disrespected and have gotten all "bent out of shape" over it?     Dude, you should know better than that after being around in the forums for as long as you have!  Lighten up!


----------



## Martial D (Aug 19, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that *they are then destructive.  Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. * .







> But it is a gross oversimplification to say that people claim their stuff is "too deadly" for sparring.  It is almost always an issue with much more nuance than that.  Ive never actually heard someone make that claim.



And what, precisely, is the difference between 'too destructive for sparring' and 'too deadly for sparring' ?

Looks like two different ways of saying the exact same thing.


----------



## Phobius (Aug 19, 2017)

Martial D said:


> And what, precisely, is the difference between 'too destructive for sparring' and 'too deadly for sparring' ?
> 
> Looks like two different ways of saying the exact same thing.



Too destructive for sparring or too deadly also means the same thing for self defense. 

One can not claim a style does not work in non lethal context unless they are trained for military service. Simply put we can not take a chance that our natural instinct becomes killing or maiming. Instead we should be ready to knock people out for their own protection or make them not want to fight anymore... (see Lomanchenko here)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2017)

Martial D said:


> And what, precisely, is the difference between 'too destructive for sparring' and 'too deadly for sparring' ?
> 
> Looks like two different ways of saying the exact same thing.


Something can be destructive without being deadly. For example, any lock that breaks/separates/tears.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2017)

In the preying mantis system, there are "8 points to hit" for "sport".

八打為：「一打眉頭雙睛、二打唇上人中、三打穿聰耳門、四打背後骨縫、五打脅內肺腑、六打撩陰高骨、七打鶴膝虎頭、八打破骨千斤」

1. Point between the eyes
2. Center point of the upper lip
3. Cheekbone under the eyes
4. Collarbone
5. Kneecaps and shins
6. Pubic bone
7. Ribs of the two flanks
8. Joints of the spine

Also there are "8 points NOT to hit" for "street".

八不打為：「一不打太陽為首、二不打正中鎖喉、三不打中心兩壁、四不打兩肋太極、五不打海底撩陰、六不打兩腎對心、七不打尾閭風府、八不打兩耳扇風。」

1. Temples
2. Throat
3. Sides of the diaphragm
4. Thoracic region (either the top of the spine between medulla and spinal cord, OR the sacrum/tailbone)
5. Groin
6. Center of the back kidneys
7. Center of the back.
8. Ear Drums

In Judo, "legal techniques" are for "sport". "illegal techniques" are for "street".


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2017)

KPM said:


> *I was pointing out, and I believe I clarified this at the end of my post, that this is a nuanced issue.  It isn't all black-and-white.  I was describing some of the nuances. There are reasons why some people see less value in sparring than other people do.*
> 
> ---You described one nuance and implied that it was a good reason not to spar.  It didn't seem like a good one to me, so I point that out and was seeking some clarification.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I guess I just can't take you seriously.  I'm not gonna try.


----------



## KPM (Aug 19, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Sorry, I guess I just can't take you seriously.  I'm not gonna try.



And so I'm the "dismissive" one.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Something can be destructive without being deadly. For example, any lock that breaks/separates/tears.


Ya but when people use the (cop out) reasoning for not pressure testing;'too deadly for sparring' they do not always mean they know the dim-mach death touch. That's why the next line uttered is usually 'my style is for killing *or maiming*, not for sport'.

What we have here is a semantics difference, at best.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 19, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Too destructive for sparring or too deadly also means the same thing for self defense.
> 
> One can not claim a style does not work in non lethal context unless they are trained for military service. Simply put we can not take a chance that our natural instinct becomes killing or maiming. Instead we should be ready to knock people out for their own protection or make them not want to fight anymore... (see Lomanchenko here)


The thing is, once you strap on the gloves you realize that people aren't so easily killed by techniques you've never even really tested.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Ya but when people use the (cop out) reasoning for not pressure testing;'too deadly for sparring' they do not always mean they know the dim-mach death touch. That's why the next line uttered is usually 'my style is for killing *or maiming*, not for sport'.
> 
> What we have here is a semantics difference, at best.


A technique can easily be too destructive for sparring. I could probably put together a complete system of such things, but it would be pretty limited - lacking all the usual bits that can be used in live sparring, both grappling and striking. So, when someone believes their style is too destructive for sparring, they are not trying very hard. They could almost certainly spar with what's not so destructive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Too destructive for sparring or too deadly also means the same thing for self defense.
> 
> One can not claim a style does not work in non lethal context unless they are trained for military service. Simply put we can not take a chance that our natural instinct becomes killing or maiming. Instead we should be ready to knock people out for their own protection or make them not want to fight anymore... (see Lomanchenko here)


Are you saying that something too destructive for sparring is also too destructive for defensive use, or did I misread your post?


----------



## Martial D (Aug 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A technique can easily be too destructive for sparring. I could probably put together a complete system of such things, but it would be pretty limited - lacking all the usual bits that can be used in live sparring, both grappling and striking. So, when someone believes their style is too destructive for sparring, they are not trying very hard. They could almost certainly spar with what's not so destructive.


I doubt you could. Even krav guys spar and every other move is a kick to the nuts or an eyepoke.

You can create one 'in theory' but I think you'd find all those super deadly moves were quite a bit less deadly than they looked in drills with compliant partners than they were in actual practice.

I guess if you never test neither of us will ever know.


----------



## Phobius (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Are you saying that something too destructive for sparring is also too destructive for defensive use, or did I misread your post?



I am not a believer in deadly tricks. They exist but not that they are necessary components of a real martial art. 

Secondly you can not claim a deadly technique is for self defense anymore. It is not self defense to ruin your own life and go to jail. Instead self defense has to be having the choice of being deadly or not. Not having the choice is like strapping explosives to yourself just in case. 

I believe we all have the possibility of doing non deadly reactions. What I also believe is that some think those non deadly things will destroy a person.

Sparring is drilling just like everything else. You can chose not to use techniques. You are not competing so it does not matter if that makes it harder for you. Instead to you learn not to kill someone from destructive techniques if that is what you think may happen. All about control.


----------



## Phobius (Aug 20, 2017)

Martial D said:


> The thing is, once you strap on the gloves you realize that people aren't so easily killed by techniques you've never even really tested.



I sadly dont believe in the hype of deadly techniques too much. The most deadly technique is most likely a regular punch, causing a person to fall to the ground and hit the back of the head on the curb. Of course some techniques are not good to use but all in all it seems silly that people say sparring can not happen because of dangers... and yet claim to study a martial art trying to become a master in self defense scenarios. How can you master self defense if  you have no possibility of being non-lethal in your own view.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I doubt you could. Even krav guys spar and every other move is a kick to the nuts or an eyepoke.
> 
> You can create one 'in theory' but I think you'd find all those super deadly moves were quite a bit less deadly than they looked in drills with compliant partners than they were in actual practice.
> 
> I guess if you never test neither of us will ever know.


I never said deadly. I said destructive.

So, if I use 

standing arm bars without a base for submission (it's a takedown occasionally, but not dependably if someone resists, and intended to break)
small binding wrist locks
shoulder lock takedowns that expose the shoulder to injury
finger locks
That's just a few I could pull in a few seconds from what I know. As I said, it wouldn't be a very effective system - too many gaps that should be filled by the less-destructive techniques - but all of those can too easily cause injury if done at speed against a resisting opponent, so aren't really safe for sparring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Phobius said:


> I am not a believer in deadly tricks. They exist but not that they are necessary components of a real martial art.
> 
> Secondly you can not claim a deadly technique is for self defense anymore. It is not self defense to ruin your own life and go to jail. Instead self defense has to be having the choice of being deadly or not. Not having the choice is like strapping explosives to yourself just in case.
> 
> I believe we all have the possibility of doing non deadly reactions. What I also believe is that some think those non deadly things will destroy a person.


Okay, again, there's a difference between "deadly" and "destructive". Destructive techniques are those that cause breaks, etc. (destroy a joint). Deadly techniques would be those that cause death.



> Sparring is drilling just like everything else. You can chose not to use techniques. You are not competing so it does not matter if that makes it harder for you. Instead to you learn not to kill someone from destructive techniques if that is what you think may happen. All about control.


Yes, you can choose not to use them. That's rather the point. But that doesn't mean they can't be rolled out for SD, where a destruction (break) may be appropriate.


----------



## KPM (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, again, there's a difference between "deadly" and "destructive". Destructive techniques are those that cause breaks, etc. (destroy a joint). Deadly techniques would be those that cause death.
> 
> 
> Yes, you can choose not to use them. That's rather the point. But that doesn't mean they can't be rolled out for SD, where a destruction (break) may be appropriate.



Good points.  How about an example from Historical European Martial Arts?  Back in the day there was a component of "knightly training" called "Kampfringin" or "combat wrestling."  This included lots of throws, but each throw was designed in such a way that the person landed on their head, or on a joint, or in some way that would cause damage when they hit the ground.  Throws were purposefully done so that the person being thrown would have a hard time breakfalling or "rolling out" to  avoid injury.  But there also existed "Ringkunst" or "Ringen" which was wrestling/grappling with a more sportive intent.  This was done as competition at faires and other events.  As you can imagine, it had very similar throws....but they had been modified to make them less injurious.  But someone that was well-versed in both could easily switch back and forth between them at will.....destructive when needed, less destructive when not.   I've never studied old school Judo or other Japanese grappling arts, but I would assume there was something very similar there as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

KPM said:


> Good points.  How about an example from Historical European Martial Arts?  Back in the day there was a component of "knightly training" called "Kampfringin" or "combat wrestling."  This included lots of throws, but each throw was designed in such a way that the person landed on their head, or on a joint, or in some way that would cause damage when they hit the ground.  Throws were purposefully done so that the person being thrown would have a hard time breakfalling or "rolling out" to  avoid injury.  But there also existed "Ringkunst" or "Ringen" which was wrestling/grappling with a more sportive intent.  This was done as competition at faires and other events.  As you can imagine, it had very similar throws....but they had been modified to make them less injurious.  But someone that was well-versed in both could easily switch back and forth between them at will.....destructive when needed, less destructive when not.   I've never studied old school Judo or other Japanese grappling arts, but I would assume there was something very similar there as well.


I have only a light (and long-ago) exposure to Judo, but I recall my instructor talking about how to make throws "harder" than you would use for competition. It was sometimes an adjustment to add energy, and sometimes an adjustment to make them fall more awkwardly (like the Kampfringin). The same applies within NGA. Most of how we train in class is softer, but we stop to examine how the throw can be adjusted to make it harder. We also look at submissions and how to take the slack out of them faster, in case you need a destruction without the time for them to tap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Something can be destructive without being deadly. For example, any lock that breaks/separates/tears.


What's the disagreement, @Steve ?


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2017)

@gpseymour I think it's a meaningless distinction, and a red herring.  Destructive or deadly, either way, it's untrainable unless you Are in the profession of violence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> @gpseymour I think it's a meaningless distinction, and a red herring.  Destructive or deadly, either way, it's untrainable unless you are in the profession of destroying joints or killing people.


Not meaningless, at all. I teach almost nothing that is designed to kill (a few things I was taught, which I will cover eventually, but aren't part of my normal curriculum). Many of the things I teach can be used for destruction (like the small-bone bind I mentioned earlier). It's not even remotely untrainable. I've seen it executed at speed in response to an attack with intent. That only works, however, if the partner ("attacker") is willing to acknowledge the danger and drop out of the technique and tap, rather than fighting against it. There's a less destructive move that works a bit further up the wrist, and this can be used on a resisting opponent, but must be abandoned if it slips lower. We often use that one for training with speed, as the movement is nearly identical. And when we train the exact movement of the destruction in drills, we just slow it down to expand the time the pain exists, so there's time to tap out. Putting those two parts together allows us to train the full range of the technique (slow) and the motions at speed (the alternative further up the wrist).

Training a technique doesn't require exact replication every time. If it did, shadow boxing would be a useless exercise.


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not meaningless, at all. I teach almost nothing that is designed to kill (a few things I was taught, which I will cover eventually, but aren't part of my normal curriculum). Many of the things I teach can be used for destruction (like the small-bone bind I mentioned earlier). It's not even remotely untrainable. I've seen it executed at speed in response to an attack with intent. That only works, however, if the partner ("attacker") is willing to acknowledge the danger and drop out of the technique and tap, rather than fighting against it. There's a less destructive move that works a bit further up the wrist, and this can be used on a resisting opponent, but must be abandoned if it slips lower. We often use that one for training with speed, as the movement is nearly identical. And when we train the exact movement of the destruction in drills, we just slow it down to expand the time the pain exists, so there's time to tap out. Putting those two parts together allows us to train the full range of the technique (slow) and the motions at speed (the alternative further up the wrist).
> 
> Training a technique doesn't require exact replication every time. If it did, shadow boxing would be a useless exercise.


Depends on the point at hand.  I think that if you are distinguishing between "too destructive" and "too deadly" you are caught up in a red herring.   If it's too dangerous to apply, it's too dangerous to train effectively.  

Regarding the rest, I've shared lengthy posts many times explaining why some martial arts are better at developing skill and expertise than others.  I don't have the patience to start over as though this is a new topic again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> Depends on the point at hand.  I think that if you are distinguishing between "too destructive" and "too deadly" you are caught up in a red herring.   If it's too dangerous to apply, it's too dangerous to train effectively.


Except that I've just demonstrated it's not. That training is similar to the training a boxer uses for developing a powerful uppercut. He can't go around applying that full-power knockout punch to his sparring partners all the time. He trains the power on bags, the movement in shadowboxing and other drills, and a safer (softer) application of the technique to his sparring partners. The primary difference is that he can later deliver that punch with power in his competition.


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except that I've just demonstrated it's not. That training is similar to the training a boxer uses for developing a powerful uppercut. He can't go around applying that full-power knockout punch to his sparring partners all the time. He trains the power on bags, the movement in shadowboxing and other drills, and a safer (softer) application of the technique to his sparring partners. The primary difference is that he can later deliver that punch with power in his competition.


Except that you haven't.  I've explained this so many times.  Some people get it.  Some don't.  Some won't.  If you want to know my response, I invite you to read the thousands of words I've written on the subject over the last several years.  Your last sentence is an essential one.

To the question you asked earlier, which is why I disagreed with your post, I think I've answered it multiple times without allowing you to draw me into taking a side in your red herring argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> your red herring argument


That's unnecessary, Steve.


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's unnecessary, Steve.


My intent isn't to attack you.   I disagreed with your post.  You asked why.   I answered: I think the distinction between "destruction" and "deadly" is a red herring.  And multiple times, you have attempted to draw me into that very argument.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I never said deadly. I said destructive.
> 
> So, if I use
> 
> ...


Of that list of things, some are done already, every day, in sparring, and some simply don't work against a resisting opponent. Saying of joint locks "without a base for submission" as a reason it can't be used in sparring is no different than saying punches and kicks can't, as they are also quite destructive and can cause head trauma or death, or in your words, 'easily cause injury if done at speed'.

Small joint locks ala aikido just..don't work. Maybe if you catch someone off guard from behind, but not if the fight is already on. You won't destroy a thing fishing for a wrist while getting pummeled. This is what the preponderance of the evidence tells us. Granted even extremely low percentage techniques like that can land, but people also can...win the lotto.

Still not buying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> My intent isn't to attack you.   I disagreed with your post.  You asked why.   I answered: I think the distinction between "destruction" and "deadly" is a red herring.  And multiple times, you have attempted to draw me into that very argument.


I disagree that there's not a functional difference. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to divert, which this is not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Of that list of things, some are done already, every day, in sparring, and some simply don't work against a resisting opponent. Saying of joint locks "without a base for submission" as a reason it can't be used in sparring is no different than saying punches and kicks can't, as they are also quite destructive and can cause head trauma or death, or in your words, 'easily cause injury if done at speed'.
> 
> Small joint locks ala aikido just..don't work. Maybe if you catch someone off guard from behind, but not if the fight is already on. You won't destroy a thing fishing for a wrist while getting pummeled. This is what the preponderance of the evidence tells us. Granted even extremely low percentage techniques like that can land, but people also can...win the lotto.
> 
> Still not buying.


Interesting. Maybe explain to the police officers who use small joint locks how ineffective they are. They are specialized moves that don't work in all situations, but when they are actually available, they are effective. The problem with them is that people (including some who really like them) assume they are meant to be applied in places where they are not.

My point about a joint lock that doesn't have a base for submission is that it's easily escaped if you don't take it past the lock (to the point of injury). That makes it useless in sparring, because you have to either go for an injury (not desirable in sparring), or a resisting opponent can use the position against you. Some of these can be converted to takedowns, where they gain a base for submission (the ground becomes the base), but not all can be realistically converted to submissions.


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I disagree that there's not a functional difference. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to divert, which this is not.


Actually, a red herring is simply a distraction from the point.   It can be intentional or unintentional.   Look it up.  But your mistaken idea that a red herring is always deliberate explains why you're taking it so personally.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> Actually, a red herring is simply a distraction from the point.   It can be intentional or unintentional.   Look it up.  But your mistaken idea that a red herring is always deliberate explains why you're taking it so personally.


I'll take your word on that - I trust your knowledge when you make a statement like that. And I don't feel like I'm taking it personally - I'm just frustrated that your counter-arguments seem to ignore (from my point of view - an important note) what appears to me to be clear logic. It means one or both of us is missing a key point, and I can't figure out for certain which it is. I don't think it's me, but then I wouldn't, if I was the one missing the point.

We're running into an area where we've frustrated each other before, and I guess it's time to drop it again. Maybe someday we'll figure out a common point on this to clarify what the real issue is.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. Maybe explain to the police officers who use small joint locks how ineffective they are. They are specialized moves that don't work in all situations, but when they are actually available, they are effective. The problem with them is that people (including some who really like them) assume they are meant to be applied in places where they are not.
> 
> My point about a joint lock that doesn't have a base for submission is that it's easily escaped if you don't take it past the lock (to the point of injury). That makes it useless in sparring, because you have to either go for an injury (not desirable in sparring), or a resisting opponent can use the position against you. Some of these can be converted to takedowns, where they gain a base for submission (the ground becomes the base), but not all can be realistically converted to submissions.



Well ya, what works against a drunk when its 2 or 3 cops on one guy is completely different than actual combat. So, that isn't really apt.

And what seem to 'easily escape' you is once a join lock or choke is applied, its tap or snap. Just because you can keep going and ignore the tap doesn't make the technique somehow unsuitable for sparring. BJJ is basically ALL sparring with joint locks and chokes, yet somehow nobody dies and rarely are limbs broken. Yet, sou seem to be stipulating that there are joint locks that you for some reason cant submit to, to which I say...where's the beef? 

Still sounds like a lot of excuses to maintain a fantasy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well ya, what works against a drunk when its 2 or 3 cops on one guy is completely different than actual combat. So, that isn't really apt.
> 
> And what seem to 'easily escape' you is once a join lock or choke is applied, its tap or snap. Just because you can keep going and ignore the tap doesn't make the technique somehow unsuitable for sparring. BJJ is basically ALL sparring with joint locks and chokes, yet somehow nobody dies and rarely are limbs broken. Yet, sou seem to be stipulating that there are joint locks that you for some reason cant submit to, to which I say...where's the beef?
> 
> Still sounds like a lot of excuses to maintain a fantasy.


So, what cops deal with can be dismissed out of hand? That's a pretty high level of confirmation bias you're working with.

And, actually, the fact that a technique can be ignored if not taken to injury is PRECISELY a reason it's not useful for sparring. What good would such a technique do in that context? And I'm well aware that BJJ is all sparring with joint locks and chokes - we share some of the same techniques with them. They also have techniques they don't allow in competition. Why? Because they are too likely to cause injury. Those are the kinds of techniques I'm talking about. They work, but not in a way that's routinely (and predictably) useful in competition.

Now, unless you're going to say that BJJ and Judo are living a fantasy when they decide too many injuries happen from a given technique....


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 20, 2017)

What does anything have to do with "Wing Chun as an Art?" 

Don't you guys get tired of having the same sparring debate on every thread no matter what the topic? It's wearing me out.


----------



## wayfaring (Aug 29, 2017)

Hey everybody - I kind of started this thread and dropped off for a bit - lot of things going on.

I wanted to say thanks so much for everyone's positive energy and contribution on the thread.   Overall some really awesome posts and great viewpoints.  There is a bit of squabbling too but it's all good.  

I'm seeing a few common themes, and I thought I'd highlight them and comment.

1) Sparring - it probably would be better if we did more of it together somehow, like old Bullshido throwdowns.  It is so much harder to meaningfully discuss sparring remotely.

2) Lineage Isolation - some seem to have more interaction - Ip Man has biggest lineage thread and may interact more.  I'm actually trying to change this isolation both in practice and attitude.  Currently I'm co-teaching and training in a local park with another Ip Man sr. practitioner Ip Ching line.  I am HFY lineage.  We are having fun training together teaching, chi sau, etc.  A Duncan Leung student stopped by Sunday and interacted.  Good energy good training.  My viewpoint and aim is to bridge past lineage isolation, wake up the conversation in public about wing chun in general, and help establish its future.

3) BJJ / Grappling community - it is very strong.  The sport orientation and competition helps team oriented behavior.  It would be good to model this positive in our art.  

I guess that's what I've got with respect to pulling together some positives for recommendations for our community for Wing Chun as an art.  

Thanks for continuing the discussion and I'll jump in where I can.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

wayfaring said:


> Hey everybody - I kind of started this thread and dropped off for a bit - lot of things going on.
> 
> I wanted to say thanks so much for everyone's positive energy and contribution on the thread.   Overall some really awesome posts and great viewpoints.  There is a bit of squabbling too but it's all good.
> 
> ...


Remind me where you are geographically located, Wayfaring? (I don't think it really matters, but my mind seems to categorize by area.)


----------



## wayfaring (Aug 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Remind me where you are geographically located, Wayfaring? (I don't think it really matters, but my mind seems to categorize by area.)


Colorado


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

wayfaring said:


> Colorado


Thanks!


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except that I've just demonstrated it's not. That training is similar to the training a boxer uses for developing a powerful uppercut. He can't go around applying that full-power knockout punch to his sparring partners all the time. He trains the power on bags, the movement in shadowboxing and other drills, and a safer (softer) application of the technique to his sparring partners. The primary difference is that he can later deliver that punch with power in his competition.



You can still do the punch. You just don't live train knocking guys out.

I can stop an attack with a moderate uppercut.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can still do the punch. You just don't live train knocking guys out.
> 
> I can stop an attack with a moderate uppercut.


And I can do the destructive techniques live. I just have to ratchet back from them and allow the person to tap out (knowing they could choose to take advantage of that holding back). It's a limitation inherent in practicing those techniques. Full-speed application doesn't get to finish. Full-range application has to slow down. I'd love to change the rules of body mechanics, but I don't have a holodeck. Someday...


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And I can do the destructive techniques live. I just have to ratchet back from them and allow the person to tap out (knowing they could choose to take advantage of that holding back). It's a limitation inherent in practicing those techniques. Full-speed application doesn't get to finish. Full-range application has to slow down. I'd love to change the rules of body mechanics, but I don't have a holodeck. Someday...



Then it is not too destructive or deadly to spar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Then it is not too destructive or deadly to spar.


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

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


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You missed the part about having to ratchet back and allow them an opening. I can't take it to the point of the break. For the techniques where there's a base to restrain them, it can be used as a submission. But some don't contain that base, so in order to be destructive they have to be used fast and hard. If you back off, the opponent can move out of them if they choose to ignore the reason you backed off.
> 
> I keep hoping I'll find someone who has a very similar version that provides a base for submission. That would open those techniques up more. I'd give up some of the destructive capacity for a bit of submission control (useful in sparring and another option in defensive use). I've seen one of them in a Judo book, and maybe even in a BJJ video, but if the opponent has any knowledge of the technique and you stop before the destruction, it's pretty easy to counter - and things go badly from that position. Another I've seen used as a takedown (ostensibly instead of a break to the hand), but I've not found anyone who could make it a takedown if I stood up, doing it slowly. Doing it fast, that standing up drives into the destruction - can't verify that at speed, of course, without risking the break.



Then it is nothing like your uppercut example.

And look up Russian ties.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Then it is nothing like your uppercut example.


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



> And look up Russian ties.


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


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And look up Russian ties.


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


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


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



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

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







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


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


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


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



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


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



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


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

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


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 29, 2017)

wayfaring said:


> Colorado



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


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> But I don't. Arm locks are rarely well suited to being in front. Off to the side at a deep angle, or behind the shoulder, sure.
> 
> 
> Except that this has nothing to do with my locks, since if I'm attempting most of them, I'm actually outside their striking range for the free arm. Your response leads me to believe you don't know anything about the locks.
> ...



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

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

That is quite simply balls.

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

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

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





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

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

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


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


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


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



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


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



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


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



> Your too deadly to spar definition is a strawman.


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

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


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's not about "so effective". They are no more effective than any other wrist lock. It's just a limitation on the range the lock works in, before damage occurs. I don't see why it bothers you so much that we don't do locks in dangerous positions. Some of these might be available out there, but we wouldn't have taken structure, and would be exposed to strikes. Wouldn't make much sense to try them out there, and they'd almost certainly be less effective.
> 
> 
> Telling you what? I've not argued that no locks can be used. We have several that work quite nicely for both submission and control. I've trained alongside LEO's and bouncers who used them (they tended not to train the others much, to avoid going to them without thought).
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> We have techniques. You mentioned two so far. Upper cuts and finger bending. Both can be trained live. If you want to mention other techniques then mention them.
> 
> You are contradicting yourself.  And then complain about how people get the wrong impression. That is disonest. And you do this a lot.


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

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


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've made no contradictions about the techniques in question. You don't understand them, and have made arguments about them, nonetheless. Both uppercut and finger bend were examples. I could mention "Third Set Wrist", but I don't know a name that is any more useful for even a similar technique (though I'm fairly certain it exists elsewhere), and nobody outside NGA calls it that. That's the best example I can give, because it has a bit of a history of breaking bones by accident. That's the technique that actually started this whole discussion.
> 
> Now, since you've stooped to calling me "dishonest", I'm truly done on this one. You're okay to debate with when you stick to facts, and don't stoop to crap like that and arguing without finding out what you're arguing about.



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

Like you just did in this post.

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

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

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

I am going to be seriously unimpressed.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2017)




----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


>


And he point of that post?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> I always feel that the message "too deadly to spar" is in fact "im not skilled enough to apply my techniques or principles in a fighting scenario". I have heard that to many times in Silat, "we don't spar because it's all lethal techniques" bla bla bla.
> 
> Well me and our guys in the school do spar, standup, throws, groundwork all of that



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


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 31, 2017)

drop bear said:


>


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


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


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


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


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


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


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

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

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

This principle also apply in wrestling. You can

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

Again, 2 > 1

This principle also apply in the striking art, You can

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

Again, 2 > 1


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To respond to a joint lock, there are 2 different approaches.
> 
> 1. Don't give your opponent any chance to apply joint lock on you.
> 2. Let your opponent to apply a joint lock on you, you then take advantage and counter it.
> ...


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


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 4, 2017)

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






He looks good there!


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> That's it right there!  We discussed this on another thread recently.   All the various lineage disputes about who got what right or who missed out on learning X or who has the best "central strategy", etc are really just pure theory when it comes right down to it.  What counts is what works.  And Wing Chun has no format to show what works.   On the other thread we talked about how Wing Chun should be getting more involved in San Da style competitions or holding their own San Da competitions.   We've had various "Chi Sau gatherings" (though mainly in Britian) that seem to help, but Chi Sau doesn't prove squat.  Chi Sau isn't fighting.  But one lineage will certainly develop respect for another if they regularly kick butt in some kind of competitive fighting format that encourages the use of actual Wing Chun technique.



Yes, it is a shame that a person from lineage X can't say "we do it this way" without a person from lineage Y saying, "Your way sucks! Only OUR lineage got the true Wing Chun!"


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 9, 2017)

I have watched videos and learned things from at least 3 guys whose names inspire strong, negative reactions: Emin Boztepe, Randy Williams, and Dom Izzo. Whatever their attitudes are, I don't care. I have watched and assimilated at least one or two things from each of these guys.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 9, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Yes, it is a shame that a person from lineage X can't say "we do it this way" without a person from lineage Y saying, "Your way sucks! Only OUR lineage got the true Wing Chun!"


That does suck. WC doesn't do lineages well. NGA is much better at it.


----------



## DanT (Sep 9, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


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


hey I posted that!


----------

