# Chi Sau & Grappling



## KPM (Oct 27, 2016)

In that thread that was recently taken down, one of the side discussions was about whether Wing Chun contained standing grappling elements and whether Chi Sau was inherently a training method for standing grappling in  addition to other things.  Here is at least one lineage that thinks so!   Recent clip from Alan Orr.  Notice how he goes from Chi Sau to a standing grapple of some sort about as often as he goes from Chi Sau to striking.  Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.







Chi Sau "range' is a grappling range.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> In that thread that was recently taken down, one of the side discussions was about whether Wing Chun contained standing grappling elements and whether Chi Sau was inherently a training method for standing grappling in  addition to other things.  Here is at least one lineage that thinks so!   Recent clip from Alan Orr.  Notice how he goes from Chi Sau to a standing grapple of some sort about as often as he goes from Chi Sau to striking.  Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would agree that chi sau range can be used to bridge to grappling range.  Let me explain, I see 4 ranges from which we can do things empty hand.  Kicking>punching>trapping>grappling.  So in my mind chi sau is "trapping" range.  You can then use trapping to either strike OR to bridge into grappling  range, if that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> In that thread that was recently taken down, one of the side discussions was about whether Wing Chun contained standing grappling elements and whether Chi Sau was inherently a training method for standing grappling in  addition to other things.  Here is at least one lineage that thinks so!   Recent clip from Alan Orr.  Notice how he goes from Chi Sau to a standing grapple of some sort about as often as he goes from Chi Sau to striking.  Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform. The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there. Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.

WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform. The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there. Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.
> 
> WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.


I've seen you post that before, and it's a reasonable statement (assuming your foundational statements are accurate, something I can't debate). However, I wonder whether some of the basic concepts and precepts of VT couldn't be translated into grappling, as well. By borrowing a few techniques that mesh well with the stances, distancing, and movement of VT (in other words, transitioning between them would feel "natural"), couldn't VT grow to include some basic, effective grappling? Again, I'm not talking about whether it has ever had it originally nor even whether it SHOULD have it, just building off your statement that it doesn't currently include it.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform. The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there. Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.
> 
> WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT.



I think (or would hope) that we all agree that chi sau is just a drill.  I think KPM's point is that the things it brings help grappling.  By things I mean...

1. Many people have an instinctive dislike for being that close, chi sau helps to overcome that.
2. It helps us to understand our structure and better prevent another from breaking it.  This is the foundation of defending against a grappler.
3. It helps train the ability to feel the weaknesses in the other person's structure, which is a useful skill if you wish to takedown your opponent


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I've seen you post that before, and it's a reasonable statement (assuming your foundational statements are accurate, something I can't debate). However, I wonder whether some of the basic concepts and precepts of VT couldn't be translated into grappling, as well. By borrowing a few techniques that mesh well with the stances, distancing, and movement of VT (in other words, transitioning between them would feel "natural"), couldn't VT grow to include some basic, effective grappling? Again, I'm not talking about whether it has ever had it originally nor even whether it SHOULD have it, just building off your statement that it doesn't currently include it.



Which concepts of VT would you like to apply to grappling?

In my opinion grappling would be inconsistent with WSL VT strategy and conceptual base, therefore doing it on purpose would not be WSL VT. I think a good idea to train grappling for situations where no longer in VT (i.e. system fail). The best bet would be BJJ.

Adding grappling to VT would most likely break the system, unless done by some kind of genius very carefully over a long period of time. But then I don't really see what the point of trying to add grappling would be when great grappling systems already exist which can be added to VT for situations outside the scope of VT? Why reinvent the wheel at the risk of breaking the system?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I've seen you post that before, and it's a reasonable statement (assuming your foundational statements are accurate, something I can't debate). However, I wonder whether some of the basic concepts and precepts of VT couldn't be translated into grappling, as well. By borrowing a few techniques that mesh well with the stances, distancing, and movement of VT (in other words, transitioning between them would feel "natural"), couldn't VT grow to include some basic, effective grappling? Again, I'm not talking about whether it has ever had it originally nor even whether it SHOULD have it, just building off your statement that it doesn't currently include it.


Guy can correct me if I am wrong but from my study of WSLVT (which is admittedly not as deep as TWC) this is my take away.  The principles of grappling are in the forms and, if taught, can be used.  WSLVT however is focused on striking.  The forms are so comprehensive that, one can do almost anything with WC BUT in WSLVT some of these other options are seen as a distraction from the main purpose, which is being a striking art.  I THINK this is what Guy means when he refers to other YM Lineages as lacking coherence.  Basically if one is learning to use a fak sau as a takedown, one has taken his eye off the ball of what WSLVT is about.

The reason I left WSLVT and stayed with TWC is basically because of this.  In modern society, especially in my career, just striking can get you into trouble if you want to defend yourself.  There is a time to strike and a time one has to be "softer" otherwise you can find yourself sitting on the wrong side of a court room and you can do this, with coherence imo, if you look at things not in terms of end purpose (striking vs grappling) but instead the deeper foundational principles such as proper structure, forwarding energy, never meet force with force, etc.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> Which concepts of VT would you like to apply to grappling?
> 
> In my opinion grappling would be inconsistent with WSL VT strategy and conceptual base, therefore doing it on purpose would not be WSL VT. I think a good idea to train grappling for situations where no longer in VT (i.e. system fail). The best bet would be BJJ.
> 
> Adding grappling to VT would most likely break the system, unless done by some kind of genius very carefully over a long period of time. But then I don't really see what the point of trying to add grappling would be when great grappling systems already exist which can be added to VT for situations outside the scope of VT? Why reinvent the wheel at the risk of breaking the system?


Adjusting a style to meet current demands doesn't require a genius. It requires a practitioner with a deep understanding of the principles, a good understanding of the changing nature of the "other guy" it should be able to face, and an ability to subtly shift principles to match changing circumstances, without throwing out the core of the art. For instance, finding some movements, stances, and weight shifts within existing VT techniques that translate into a simple takedown with some adjustment. Perhaps adjusting distancing on some few techniques that can bear the adjustment, so as to allow access to or defense from grappling attacks. Adjusting curriculum is a laborious process, but it's not a genius-level task. Believing the originator of any style is an incomparable genius is what leads to styles not adapting as the landscape around them does. Most of them were smart, dedicated men who worked hard and put together a strong system. Adapting that system over time should actually be easier than developing it.

As for which principles, that's what I'm asking you (and others on this thread). I've already stated that I don't have any depth of understanding in WC to speak to specific principles.


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> an ability to subtly shift principles to match changing circumstances, without throwing out the core of the art.



Do you believe that VT needs to adjust to changing circumstances? If so why, and in what way?



gpseymour said:


> For instance, finding some movements, stances, and weight shifts within existing VT techniques that translate into a simple takedown with some adjustment.



Ignoring the fact that aiming for takedowns does indeed violate core WSL VT principles, why make up a second rate takedown using cobbled together bits of VT when top notch grappling with great takedowns exists in almost every city in the civilised world? I think the simplest, most efficient and most direct course of action is simply to learn grappling if you need it?



gpseymour said:


> Perhaps adjusting distancing on some few techniques that can bear the adjustment, so as to allow access to or defense from grappling attacks.



WSL VT isn't a technique based system. It is quite comprehensive and very interdependent



gpseymour said:


> Adjusting curriculum is a laborious process, but it's not a genius-level task. Believing the originator of any style is an incomparable genius is what leads to styles not adapting as the landscape around them does. Most of them were smart, dedicated men who worked hard and put together a strong system. Adapting that system over time should actually be easier than developing it.



I don't believe that VT is the work of a single person. Seeing the way it is designed to work conceptually and strategically in fighting; incredibly complex but simple and mindless to use, the way it is designed to create training partners who can be used in mutually beneficial drills in order to correct errors, build structure, create good habits and eliminate bad, the way the training method is designed to force errors in order that they can be re-trained and eliminated, the way that time and progress dependent stages are linked together, and the way it all connects perfectly together as a system without contradiction or redundancy is quite staggering. It would be a very difficult thing to change without causing a problem. 



gpseymour said:


> As for which principles, that's what I'm asking you (and others on this thread). I've already stated that I don't have any depth of understanding in WC to speak to specific principles.



I don't see any reason to alter the system of WSL VT. I don't see what grappling integrated into the system would do (assuming it could be done successfully) that learning an optimised grappling system as an add-on would not?


----------



## KPM (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I would agree that chi sau range can be used to bridge to grappling range.  Let me explain, I see 4 ranges from which we can do things empty hand.  Kicking>punching>trapping>grappling.  So in my mind chi sau is "trapping" range.  You can then use trapping to either strike OR to bridge into grappling  range, if that makes sense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



But is not trapping a form of standing grappling?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> Do you believe that VT needs to adjust to changing circumstances? If so why, and in what way?


Yes, as I believe all arts and styles need to adjust as the kinds of attacks, environments, and weapons they might face change. As to what, I've already stated that I have little exposure to VT.



> Ignoring the fact that aiming for takedowns does indeed violate core WSL VT principles, why make up a second rate takedown using cobbled together bits of VT when top notch grappling with great takedowns exists in almost every city in the civilised world? I think the simplest, most efficient and most direct course of action is simply to learn grappling if you need it?


Why need it be "second rate"? There are very simple takedowns that work quite well. If one of those could be mated with the movements and distancing already within the style, it would be a benefit to the practitioner. To take on an entire second art is not, in fact, the simplest approach for the student. It's the simplest approach for the instructor.




> WSL VT isn't a technique based system. It is quite comprehensive and very interdependent


Okay. I don't think any coherent system is a "technique based system". They're all based on principles, or they'd feel cobbled-together.



> I don't believe that VT is the work of a single person. Seeing the way it is designed to work conceptually and strategically in fighting; incredibly complex but simple and mindless to use, the way it is designed to create training partners who can be used in mutually beneficial drills in order to correct errors, build structure, create good habits and eliminate bad, the way the training method is designed to force errors in order that they can be re-trained and eliminated, the way that time and progress dependent stages are linked together, and the way it all connects perfectly together as a system without contradiction or redundancy is quite staggering. It would be a very difficult thing to change without causing a problem.


So, your claim is that this art that is a combination of the work of multiple people is now nearly impossible to change? That makes no sense. Small changes over time should happen naturally. And those changes - if made judiciously - should be fairly easy to work with and should cause the art to evolve as the environment does.



> I don't see any reason to alter the system of WSL VT. I don't see what grappling integrated into the system would do (assuming it could be done successfully) that learning an optimised grappling system as an add-on would not?


It would let the student learn a combined system, rather than having to take on an entire additional art. You are correct, of course, that training in BJJ will provide superior results to whatever might be developed within VT. That doesn't make what's in VT bad. The kicks my students develop are unlikely to be the equal of those in Kyokushin, TKD, or other arts that use them a lot. But I don't send students off to study TKD to learn to kick. I teach them effective, simple kicks that fit in with the grappling and punching work we do. If they want to become great kickers, I suggest they add on a second art, and then I try not to mess with those kicks too much.


----------



## KPM (Oct 27, 2016)

_In WSL VT chi sau is a training drill, not an application platform._

---I think Alan Orr would agree with that statement.  After all, you wouldn't expect an opponent to roll in Chi Sau with you!   
_

The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. _

---It just depends on what terminology you use.  At the distance in which Chi Sau is practiced, you are close enough to engage his arms as well as reach his head or torso.  Therefore you are close enough to grab his arm or his neck, etc.....which is standing grappling. So if you are close enough to do Chi Sau, you are close enough to do a standing grapple of some sort!  Sure you can close in to body-to-body range as well.  But the standing grapple can take place prior to getting that close.


_In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there._

---Who said anyone would try and keep them in that range?  Watch Alan in the video.  They start in Chi Sau as the drilling and training platform and from there they work at that distance, get much closer, get further apart for longer range strikes and kicks, and even go to the ground.  


_ Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling._

---I think of Chi Sau as a training platform.  It is a "jumping off" place to many different things, as you see Alan doing.  It is a way to engage with your training partner dynamically and unpredictably rather than just standing in front of each other and doing techniques.


_WSL VT is a striking system with a strategic and conceptual approach where grappling would amount to an emergency situation and prolonged grappling system failure. This is why training a separate and non-conflicting grappling style (like bjj) is important in WSL VT._

---Ok.  That makes sense when you explain that excluding the standing grapple is in line with your strategic and conceptual approach.  CSL Wing Chun has a different strategic and conceptual approach, as does Pin Sun Wing Chun and other versions.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> Do you believe that VT needs to adjust to changing circumstances? If so why, and in what way?



Striking isn't always advisable if the opponent has a knife or other weapon (as an example).  Also one must consider legal considerations.



> Ignoring the fact that aiming for takedowns does indeed violate core WSL VT principles, why make up a second rate takedown using cobbled together bits of VT when top notch grappling with great takedowns exists in almost every city in the civilised world? I think the simplest, most efficient and most direct course of action is simply to learn grappling if you need it?



The first part I will not deny, it does violate certain core principles of WSL VT BUT they aren't second rate.  Many of the takedowns, chin na etc. are little different than those I learned in Aikido and Judo.  I understand you haven't been taught these techniques (I will elaborate on that word below) but they are still part of the forms and principles.  By principles I mean disrupting the structure/center of the opponent.  That is the very essence of the take down.  It seems to me that since you have not learned this and fervently believe in the WSLVT you have learned that by definition, something outside that vision must be second rate.  This is not the case.



> WSL VT isn't a technique based system. It is quite comprehensive and very interdependent



here I think we have an argument based on semantics and/or philosophy.  Many would say that a bong sau, as an example, is technically a technique.  And this I think is the core of many of these debates, semantics and philosophy vs practical ends.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> But is not trapping a form of standing grappling?



First I believe there is stand up grappling, it's just that there the only effective strikes are elbows and knees.  Trapping is two part in my mind.  First you are close enough where you can basically use every tool, even low kicks.  Second trapping is transitory.  Grappling is to establish control, trapping is to simply create an opening to strike.


----------



## KPM (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First I believe there is stand up grappling, it's just that there the only effective strikes are elbows and knees.  Trapping is two part in my mind.  First you are close enough where you can basically use every tool, even low kicks.  Second trapping is transitory.  Grappling is to establish control, trapping is to simply create an opening to strike.



But would not an elbow lock or a wrist grab that yanks an opponent off balance take place at "Chi Sau range"?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> But would not an elbow lock or a wrist grab that yanks an opponent off balance take place at "Chi Sau range"?



The fence or the equivalent puts you at about chi sau range.







If they can create a straight bead to your head. They have a higher chance of hitting you without you stopping them. So as you are having a talk to a guy he is positioning to sucker punch you you are positioning to stop him.


----------



## KPM (Oct 27, 2016)

^^^^^ And a standing grapple could easily happen at that distance!


----------



## Steve (Oct 27, 2016)

I hear often that WC is not a techniques based art, but rather it is based on principles.  As an outsider, this could translate a couple of different ways.  Are you guys suggesting that WC has no techniques, or that the techniques are informed by principles?  Or something else?


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> I hear often that WC is not a techniques based art, but rather it is based on principles.  As an outsider, this could translate a couple of different ways.  Are you guys suggesting that WC has no techniques, or that the techniques are informed by principles?  Or something else?



It isn't based on applications, as for example jiu jitsu is, especially in the early stages of learning. There is no "if you do this, I respond with this"


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> But would not an elbow lock or a wrist grab that yanks an opponent off balance take place at "Chi Sau range"?


Of course.  I am not talking about universal principles.  This is more of a KISS principle I would tell to a new guy.  In this way if they want to have access to striking and control they go trapping range, if they are prioritizing control go to grappling... etc.  There will always be some degree of overlap.

Perhaps a better way to describe each range is the ONLY thing you can do in said range vs all the things you can do?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Why need it be "second rate"?



VT grappling would be second rate because it would be made up by a VT person with no real understanding of grappling. It would be much more simple, direct and efficient just to learn real grappling somewhere that specialises in grappling. 



gpseymour said:


> There are very simple takedowns that work quite well. If one of those could be mated with the movements and distancing already within the style, it would be a benefit to the practitioner.



Why, given the strategy of VT, would taking someone down be desirable?



gpseymour said:


> So, your claim is that this art that is a combination of the work of multiple people is now nearly impossible to change? That makes no sense. Small changes over time should happen naturally. And those changes - if made judiciously - should be fairly easy to work with and should cause the art to evolve as the environment does.



I see no point in de-optimising an optimally functional system



gpseymour said:


> You are correct, of course, that training in BJJ will provide superior results to whatever might be developed within VT.



Then I would say lets stick with that as a plan.


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Striking isn't always advisable if the opponent has a knife or other weapon (as an example).  Also one must consider legal considerations.



Learn grappling. Wing chun probably not that important in the grand scheme. Police vs criminal is like predator vs prey. In most situations, given the chance, they want to run away from you. If they fight you then they need to incapacitate you asap, while all you need to do is survive and get them on the ground to control them. Arresting is not fighting. 



> The first part I will not deny, it does violate certain core principles of WSL VT BUT they aren't second rate.  Many of the takedowns, chin na etc. are little different than those I learned in Aikido and Judo.  I understand you haven't been taught these techniques (I will elaborate on that word below) but they are still part of the forms and principles.  By principles I mean disrupting the structure/center of the opponent.  That is the very essence of the take down.  It seems to me that since you have not learned this and fervently believe in the WSLVT you have learned that by definition, something outside that vision must be second rate.  This is not the case.



If grappling violates core principles then it isn't the system. Not the system is definitely second rate in terms of the system.


----------



## Cephalopod (Oct 27, 2016)

Cool video.

I'm not sure why everyone seems fixated on what it demonstrates about a specific range as Alan and his partner seem to constantly flow between striking range and a close clinch with everything in between.

More interesting to me is this:
It seem imperative that Alan's partner avoid the neck hook, because once Alan has that locked in, he's pretty much done (as would I be with Alan's hand hooked onto my scrawny neck lol)
Yet he does not seem to be training any counters. At :43 and 1:15 for example, he just ignores Alan's left and throws a couple of ineffective blows with his right...to his detriment.
I wonder what he's thinking.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

Cephalopod said:


> Cool video.
> 
> I'm not sure why everyone seems fixated on what it demonstrates about a specific range as Alan and his partner seem to constantly flow between striking range and a close clinch with everything in between.
> 
> ...


In my mind fighting is all about flowing between ranges (I also study Kali and such flow is vital, especially with the weapons).  For me the point is to only know what tools you can't use in the various ranges, as a teaching point.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:
			
		

> At the distance in which Chi Sau is practiced, you are close enough to engage his arms as well as reach his head or torso.  Therefore you are close enough to grab his arm or his neck, etc.....which is standing grappling. So if you are close enough to do Chi Sau, you are close enough to do a standing grapple of some sort!  Sure you can close in to body-to-body range as well.  But the standing grapple can take place prior to getting that close.



I don't see what chi sau or the distance it is done at has to do with fighting?



> Who said anyone would try and keep them in that range?  Watch Alan in the video.  They start in Chi Sau as the drilling and training platform and from there they work at that distance, get much closer, get further apart for longer range strikes and kicks, and even go to the ground



I don't see what the people in the Alan Orr video are training. It looks as if they are trying to use chi sau as a bridge between striking and grappling? Not sure how this would train the things chi sau trains in WSL VT, but can see how it would train an application based approach to the drill, i.e with intent to use in fighting. 



> Ok.  That makes sense when you explain that excluding the standing grapple is in line with your strategic and conceptual approach.  CSL Wing Chun has a different strategic and conceptual approach, as does Pin Sun Wing Chun and other versions.



i have no issue with different systems doing different things


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> In my mind fighting is all about flowing between ranges (I also study Kali and such flow is vital, especially with the weapons).  For me the point is to only know what tools you can't use in the various ranges, as a teaching point.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Does your wing chun teach ranges as in MMA or JKD (grappling, (trapping), punching, kicking, etc)?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> Does your wing chun teach ranges as in MMA or JKD (grappling, (trapping), punching, kicking, etc)?


No, Kali uses a variation of that though.  I was using that simply as a generic visual tool to break down the difference I see between being in trapping and grappling range.  I find it useful when explaining how WC works (bridging from not being able to touch to fighting) to those who know little to nothing about WC.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 27, 2016)

I agree with Guy. Gracie Jiujitsu would teach you how to properly enter grappling range from striking range, and it would compliment your WC very well since it doesn't conflict with it.

I'm generally skeptical of those attacks shown in the video because people simply don't fight like that. A boxer for example would simply back up, flank to one of your open sides and clock you in the face.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I agree with Guy. Gracie Jiujitsu would teach you how to properly enter grappling range from striking range, and it would compliment your WC very well since it doesn't conflict with it.
> 
> I'm generally skeptical of those attacks shown in the video because people simply don't fight like that. A boxer for example would simply back up, flank to one of your open sides and clock you in the face.


The problem is his WC/VT isn't every lineage and there is lies the problem.  Some teach bridging from striking to grappling, if appropriate.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem is his WC/VT isn't every lineage and there is lies the problem.  Some teach bridging from striking to grappling, if appropriate.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



But again why bother with it? It is going to be rudimentary at best, and better options are available. 

I'm not really sure how you justify aiming for grappling according to the system of YM wing chun, but even from a purely efficacy based standpoint, I don't see how integrating it into your VT is sensible when much better grappling options exist.


----------



## KPM (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> But again why bother with it? It is going to be rudimentary at best, and better options are available.
> 
> I'm not really sure how you justify aiming for grappling according to the system of YM wing chun, but even from a purely efficacy based standpoint, I don't see how integrating it into your VT is sensible when much better grappling options exist.



Well, what did you think of Alan Orr's video?  There is plenty of standing grappling there that comes directly from his version of Wing Chun.  It looks pretty efficient and effective to me!


----------



## guy b (Oct 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> Well, what did you think of Alan Orr's video?  There is plenty of standing grappling there that comes directly from his version of Wing Chun.  It looks pretty efficient and effective to me!



His fighters look effective in their fights. I think that some of the wing chun stuff he shows looks less effective, and I don't see it in the fights, but who am I to judge?

I think that Alan Orr's wing chun looks like quite a different system to WSL VT. Since not the same system it isn't possible to compare directly to WSL VT, unlike other YM derived wing chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> It isn't based on applications, as for example jiu jitsu is, especially in the early stages of learning. There is no "if you do this, I respond with this"


That's a fundamental misunderstanding of jiu jitsu. No reasonable art expects people to follow a template. "Applications" are simply ways of using a given technique. Once a student has some comprehension, they tend to work in what I call "the grey areas" between techniques, borrowing a bit from one and a bit from another, moving based upon principles rather than techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Of course.  I am not talking about universal principles.  This is more of a KISS principle I would tell to a new guy.  In this way if they want to have access to striking and control they go trapping range, if they are prioritizing control go to grappling... etc.  There will always be some degree of overlap.
> 
> Perhaps a better way to describe each range is the ONLY thing you can do in said range vs all the things you can do?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Isn't the overlap always pretty big, though? Grappling range is also elbow/knee striking range (the is where Muay Thai shines). Standard striking range is where the projections (throws that send people away) live. Kicking range is also shooting (not the gun version) range.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> VT grappling would be second rate because it would be made up by a VT person with no real understanding of grappling. It would be much more simple, direct and efficient just to learn real grappling somewhere that specialises in grappling.


Why? Couldn't it be created by someone who understands grappling (probably from another source) and is highly proficient in VT?



> Why, given the strategy of VT, would taking someone down be desirable?


This is a good question. I can't speak to why taking someone down would be better than not doing so withing VT strategy. What I can say is that arts with no grappling tend to struggle against grappling, so adding some simple, effective grappling would tend to allow VT to evolve better defense against grappling attacks, which would seem to be in alignment with the effectiveness principle.



> I see no point in de-optimising an optimally functional system


Your assertion that it's optimal presumes that it will always be so. I know of no system that has presented good evidence of an unchanging standard remaining relevant, much less optimal.



> Then I would say lets stick with that as a plan.


Again, you're assuming all students have the time and money to pursue a second art, entirely ignoring the points I made about that issue. For VT to be optimally effective, it should be looking at what's most effective within its own sphere, not assuming students will fill gaps elsewhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I agree with Guy. Gracie Jiujitsu would teach you how to properly enter grappling range from striking range, and it would compliment your WC very well since it doesn't conflict with it.
> 
> I'm generally skeptical of those attacks shown in the video because people simply don't fight like that. A boxer for example would simply back up, flank to one of your open sides and clock you in the face.


So, what of the folks who can't feasibly train two arts?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 27, 2016)

Many people believe that if you train boxing and BJJ, you will be able to do both striking and grappling. The problem is your

- boxing coach doesn't know how to integrate grappling into boxing.
- BJJ instructor doesn't know how to integrate boxing into grappling.

The nice thing about WC is, it already has "sticky hand" that can integrate "striking" and "grappling" nicely.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Isn't the overlap always pretty big, though? Grappling range is also elbow/knee striking range (the is where Muay Thai shines). Standard striking range is where the projections (throws that send people away) live. Kicking range is also shooting (not the gun version) range.



That's why I added the bit, via edit, that perhaps I should have limited to the techniques that can only be used.  It may also be semantics.  I don't see a throw as "control" because you let go.  It creates distance but when I speak grappling I mean techniques that allow you to maintain control of the suspect vs simply sending them away.  There is still a gray area for sure, and there are always exceptions to the rule what I am speaking of is generalities for the "new guy" with no clue about how a formal Martial arts system works.  Then you broaden the base once they have the KISS foundation down.  Probably the lapsed history teacher talking.  You don't start with Jefferson and Adam's debating the divinity of Christ in letters, you start with them debating on the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

guy b said:


> But again why bother with it? It is going to be rudimentary at best, and better options are available.
> 
> I'm not really sure how you justify aiming for grappling according to the system of YM wing chun, but even from a purely efficacy based standpoint, I don't see how integrating it into your VT is sensible when much better grappling options exist.


Your idea that it is rudimentary at best is an assumption that in my experience is false.  The ability to execute a throw, a take down, apply a wrist or elbow lock, an arm bar.  These are all in the forms, as taught by my current lineage, and when applied are quite similar to the same maneuvers I learned in Aikido and Judo.  Now I am going to be ground fighting like a BJJ guy?  Hell no, but for my professional purposes I in a million years do not want to do that, I want to know how to avoid it, which I am also taught in a very holistic (coherent) way.  However it can, and does work... Though I have the time and money to study Kali to augment it.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2016)

Steve said:


> I hear often that WC is not a techniques based art, but rather it is based on principles.  As an outsider, this could translate a couple of different ways.  Are you guys suggesting that WC has no techniques, or that the techniques are informed by principles?  Or something else?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

Regarding grappling/takedowns... These are things in the WC I understand which are also very similar to the Aikido and Judo I studied many moons ago... @gpseymour can correct me if my recollection is in error due to the art he teaches...











Now the first video I am uncertain of the Lineage but I learn it. The second is the closed door student and US head of Grand Master William Cheung's TWC and Sifu Keith is the Sifu of my Sifu.  What I love about this video is Sifu Keith's comment about how some will say it isn't WC.  Makes me smirk every time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Regarding grappling/takedowns... These are things in the WC I understand which are also very similar to the Aikido and Judo I studied many moons ago... @gpseymour can correct me if my recollection is in error due to the art he teaches...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first would be a variation of what we call "Unbendable Arm", possibly coupled with motion from "Spin Around" in the first example. The second (which includes a "Princess Bride" reference) is consistent with some un-named defenses I teach against headlocks and other miscellaneous attacks, though the execution is closer to western wrestling.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 27, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people believe that if you train boxing and BJJ, you will be able to do both striking and grappling. The problem is your
> 
> - boxing coach doesn't know how to integrate grappling into boxing.
> - BJJ instructor doesn't know how to integrate boxing into grappling.
> ...



That's not necessarily true. Classic Bjj (mainly Gjj) initiates throws from the clinch, which is very similar to the boxer clinch. It wouldn't take much to modify the standard boxer clinch into the clinch found in old-school Bjj.

Boxing teaches you to go for the clinch when you're taking too much punishment from striking range. Bjj teaches you to throw and perform takedowns from the clinch. They actually compliment each other.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The first would be a variation of what we call "Unbendable Arm", possibly coupled with motion from "Spin Around" in the first example. The second (which includes a "Princess Bride" reference) is consistent with some un-named defenses I teach against headlocks and other miscellaneous attacks, though the execution is closer to western wrestling.



Agreed that the second is closer to Western wrestling but the basic principles are the same (not just Aikido but Judo). My point was more about basic principles which are in the forms on the Wing Chun I study and it is very holistic.  Another YM Lineage may doesn't but, imo, that to me means very little. If it works, it works.

Heck, while more quiet on this form I remember the fight between various Aikido students/teachers regarding whether it is spiritual or physical when I studied Aikido.  The philosophical battles seem to be not uncommon.

PS what Princess Bride reference?  I adore that movie... "...mostly dead..."


----------



## geezer (Oct 27, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> PS what Princess Bride reference?  I adore that movie... "...mostly dead..."



Then you might appreciate my R.O U.S branch of Wing Chun! We go from Chi-Sau to the Clinch to gnawing the neck:

https://cindygurmann.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/rous.jpg


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 27, 2016)

At 1.06 in the above clip, if his opponent uses left leg to "springs" his right leg backward during "under hook", his counter will be difficult.


----------



## KPM (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> That's not necessarily true. Classic Bjj (mainly Gjj) initiates throws from the clinch, which is very similar to the boxer clinch. It wouldn't take much to modify the standard boxer clinch into the clinch found in old-school Bjj.
> 
> Boxing teaches you to go for the clinch when you're taking too much punishment from striking range. Bjj teaches you to throw and perform takedowns from the clinch. They actually compliment each other.




Yes!  And Wing Chun Chi Sau can serve the same purpose as the "clinch" in either case!


----------



## WcForMe (Oct 28, 2016)

Chi Sao is a funny business. If you look at this video






It's an interview with Leung Ting after a minute or so you can clearly see Sifu Nick Smart Chi Saoing with another instructor. Nick is throwing elbows, trips etc. This is how I used to Chi Sao. Since I changed lineage we don't do any of this. Now it's a platform for structure testing and improving shapes etc.

Just shows me different lineages have totally different concepts for the same idea. I don't think the community on a whole can't agree what chi Sao should be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Agreed that the second is closer to Western wrestling but the basic principles are the same (not just Aikido but Judo). My point was more about basic principles which are in the forms on the Wing Chun I study and it is very holistic.  Another YM Lineage may doesn't but, imo, that to me means very little. If it works, it works.


Agreed - I was mostly pointing it out for clarification.  Both work in the appropriate context, and if those principles are within the WC forms, those are excellent inclusions to allow some takedowns. Having them should also improve the students' ability at resisting takedowns.



> Heck, while more quiet on this form I remember the fight between various Aikido students/teachers regarding whether it is spiritual or physical when I studied Aikido.  The philosophical battles seem to be not uncommon.


Yes. Some of that even happens within NGA. We're not derived from Ueshiba's Aikido, but nearly all of the books about Aikido are from his art, so the philosophy is adopted by some NGA students.



> PS what Princess Bride reference?  I adore that movie... "...mostly dead..."


Same character..."Aha!" - clearly in Billy Crystal's voice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> At 1.06 in the above clip, if his opponent uses left leg to "springs" his right leg backward during "under hook", his counter will be difficult.


Agreed. It's more about who controls the shoulders there, though. If the bald guy has control of the shoulders (or at least his own), he can turn that into a sweep. If non-bald guy uses shoulder control to put bald guy's weight on that side for a moment, that leg can't move effectively to counter with that move. Every technique has a counter or eight.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> At 1.06 in the above clip, if his opponent uses left leg to "springs" his right leg backward during "under hook", his counter will be difficult.



Oh agreed, there are always counters to counters.  Grappling is very much a chess match.  The point of the video was simply to say that there are WC/VT/WT Lineages that have it.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. It's more about who controls the shoulders there, though. If the bald guy has control of the shoulders (or at least his own), he can turn that into a sweep. If non-bald guy uses shoulder control to put bald guy's weight on that side for a moment, that leg can't move effectively to counter with that move. Every technique has a counter or eight.



Yep hence my chess match reference above.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2016)

geezer said:


> Then you might appreciate my R.O U.S branch of Wing Chun! We go from Chi-Sau to the Clinch to gnawing the neck:
> 
> https://cindygurmann.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/rous.jpg


Sounds great, my only problem is I hate the location....swamps... ewwww


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> Yes!  And Wing Chun Chi Sau can serve the same purpose as the "clinch" in either case!



I am not sure about this.  Chi Sau to start, in my experience requires a willing partner that then transitions into challenge.  Now many of the principles you learn are indeed applicable (as I previously stated) but the actual drill (for lack of a better term) isn't directly practical.  At least in the way I was taught.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 28, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I am not sure about this.  Chi Sau to start, in my experience requires a willing partner that then transitions into challenge.  Now many of the principles you learn are indeed applicable (as I previously stated) but the actual drill (for lack of a better term) isn't directly practical.  At least in the way I was taught.



I hear ya Juany...but perhaps what KPM is referring to, aside from principles aspect, is that in chi sau (two arm) you either have two outside hands, two inside hands, or one inside and one outside... and anyone who has ever clinched or been clinched or wrestled or whatever knows that these three potential limb configurations exist in that range. Just my .02 on what (perhaps) KPM was hinting at. Thx.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I hear ya Juany...but perhaps what KPM is referring to, aside from principles aspect, is that in chi sau (two arm) you either have two outside hands, two inside hands, or one inside and one outside... and anyone who has ever clinched or been clinched or wrestled or whatever knows that these three potential limb configurations exist in that range. Just my .02 on what (perhaps) KPM was hinting at. Thx.


Okay, I could see that and would agree.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b (Oct 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> Yes!  And Wing Chun Chi Sau can serve the same purpose as the "clinch" in either case!



So you see chi sau as being directly applicable to fighting?


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 28, 2016)

In my opinion, Chi Sao (and WC as a whole) exists somewhere between grappling and punching range. However, the sensitivity developed during Chi Sao could certainly help you out with a grappler. By that I mean you are in close...you have established a bridge with the grappler...and therefore you can sense where they are going.

I'm not saying it is foolproof against grappling, but then again...grappling isn't foolproof against wing chun!


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> Yes!  And Wing Chun Chi Sau can serve the same purpose as the "clinch" in either case!



Well I wouldn't say "either case". WC grappling leaves a lot to be desired.

Cross-training would be a better option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Well I wouldn't say "either case". WC grappling leaves a lot to be desired.
> 
> Cross-training would be a better option.


Yes, but again that doesn't mean WC can't deliver a few effective techniques to fill a gap. It's not an absolute, black-or-white issue.


----------



## KPM (Oct 28, 2016)

guy b said:


> So you see chi sau as being directly applicable to fighting?




Not the Chi Sau "structure" as it is drilled.  But the Chi Sau skills used at that range should transition over to fighting.  The idea that you are trying to hit someone, they put up a defense to keep from being hit, which makes contact with your punching arm forming a "bridge" and then you use that contact and your Chi Sau skills to clear away their obstruction and continue to hit them.  Or you are in scrap and things are not working as planned and you are in close with an opponent trying to put hands on you and tie you up to keep you from striking...that is where Chi Sau skills should kick in.  And that is also where it becomes similar to the "clinch."   And just the idea that the Chi Sau rolling platform used for training can be a jumping off point for either closing to grapple or for striking, also makes it similar to the "clinch."


----------



## KPM (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Well I wouldn't say "either case". WC grappling leaves a lot to be desired.
> 
> Cross-training would be a better option.




No.  You said this:   _Boxing teaches you to go for the clinch when you're taking too much punishment from striking range. Bjj teaches you to throw and perform takedowns from the clinch._

By "either case" I meant that Chi Sau can also function to help you out when you are taking too much punishment at striking range as well as when someone is trying to throw you or perform a takedown.  And I don't mean the Chi Sau rolling structure.  I mean the skills developed by training Chi Sau.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but again that doesn't mean WC can't deliver a few effective techniques to fill a gap. It's not an absolute, black-or-white issue.



I never said that. I simply said that if your goal is to be a better fighter, you're better off cross-training. A WC exponent who only does Wing Chun is going to be worse off than a WC exponent who supplemented his training with Bjj, especially when it comes to grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I never said that. I simply said that if your goal is to be a better fighter, you're better off cross-training. A WC exponent who only does Wing Chun is going to be worse off than a WC exponent who supplemented his training with Bjj, especially when it comes to grappling.


You'll get no argument on that point. My point is just that WC can improve the situation for those who don't cross-train.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 28, 2016)

But Sifu Bayer says is response to... "*What is your opinion of cross training eg Wing Chun and Brazilian Jiu jitsu?"
*


> To attain combat proficiancy in Ving Tsun, you have to train very hard, to keep this level even harder… there is no time for implementing other ideas.



Now of course I disagree with this BUT it seems odd people who believe Bayer is THE living voice of WSL would say cross training is a good idea...

Wing Chun Masters: Philipp Bayer - Snake vs Crane Wing Chun
*
*


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Boxing teaches you to go for the clinch when you're taking too much punishment from striking range.


It's much harder to use "short range boxing guard" to wrap your opponent's arms to establish a successful clinch than to use the "long range WC Tan Shou guard".

When you use

- "boxing guard", your arms are too close to your own head. When your opponent's punches arrives, those punches are too fast and too powerful.
- "WC Tan Shou", your hand is far away from your head and near your opponent's head, when your opponent punches, you can use your Tan Shou to interrupt his punches during his "initial punching stage" before his can generate speed and power.

The WC Tan Shou can help you to extend your arm between your opponent's arm and his head and separate his arm away from his body.

I agree that after the clinch is established, there won't be any difference whether you may come from WC or boxing. It's how to switch from heavy punches mode into clinch mode that can make a big difference.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2016)

You can use WC Chi Shou to develop:

- push,
- pull,
- drag,
- guide,
- tuck,
- jam,
- separate,
- ...

All those skills are useful in both striking and grappling.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 28, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's much harder to use "short range boxing guard" to wrap your opponent's arms to establish a successful clinch than to use the "long range WC Tan Shou guard".
> 
> When you use
> 
> ...



I'm not seeing what the boxing guard has to do with what I was talking about, which was the clinch. Boxers are quite adept (if not masters) at evading punches and entering the clinch. In fact it's a pretty integral part of their method.

If you're well versed in Bjj's clinch-based takedowns, you really should have no problem initiating takedowns and throws once you've established the clinch.

I'm not sure if this is by design, but its quite interesting how well Bjj works with and against boxing and striking in general. I would argue that its fairly likely that Maeda developed his system of Jiujitsu (Judo) to directly deal with striking from all of his challenge matches he participated in. Alternatively, it could have came later via the Brazilians.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I would argue that its fairly likely that Maeda developed his system of Jiujitsu (Judo) to directly deal with striking from all of his challenge matches he participated in. Alternatively, it could have came later via the Brazilians.


The small amount of research I've done leads me to believe both are involved. I think the biggest influence is as you suggest, and that the Brazilians refined it into a coherent system with better transmitability.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 28, 2016)

guy b said:


> ....The idea of chi sau range therefore makes no sense. In practical terms (as a grappler) it also makes no sense, since keeping someone in chi sau is virtually impossible if they don't want to stay there.



Agree with that last part. 

To use this as a point of discussion, in my experience 2-handed chi sau (taan/bong/fook) isn't something we look to do at all - it's something we _have_ to do because our opponent was able to force us into that position/timeframe. It is used to stop the fight from going into grabbing/grappling, not as a way to enter it. Now, I guess if someone wants to give up the advantage chi sau offers in that situation to agree to grapple/wrestle, that's on them. But IMO it's not efficient use of WC principles, strategy & tactics.



guy b said:


> Overall I think that it is best to think of chi sau as a cooperative trainng drill, not a fighting range between hitting and grappling.



As a point of discussion: Forgetting about range, as there are different ranges and facing for WC chi sau bridging (single hand, 2 hand, open vs close stance, dui ying/jeu ying, etc), I would say WC's chi sau technology is _exactly_ the 'time-frame' between striking and grappling - time-frame being the better term here. And yes, chi sau technology has direct fighting application. 

In WC our goal isn't to 'chi', our goal is to hit - it's up to our opponent whether or not we _have _to chi. This is what Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung is all about.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I never said that. I simply said that if your goal is to be a better fighter, you're better off cross-training. A WC exponent who only does Wing Chun is going to be worse off than a WC exponent who supplemented his training with Bjj, especially when it comes to grappling.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on which wing chun you are talking about/


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Depends on which wing chun you are talking about/


I"m not sure it does depend. There are only a few systems out there that could claim BJJ doesn't add significantly to their fighting ability. That's not a shot against any (nor all) styles - it's a recognition that BJJ is highly effective, especially when you end up on the ground or want to avoid doing so. And having that ability - at the level BJJ offers - adds to nearly anyone's ability as a fighter.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I"m not sure it does depend. There are only a few systems out there that could claim BJJ doesn't add significantly to their fighting ability. That's not a shot against any (nor all) styles - it's a recognition that BJJ is highly effective, especially when you end up on the ground or want to avoid doing so. And having that ability - at the level BJJ offers - adds to nearly anyone's ability as a fighter.


---------------------------------------------------
That's your opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------
> That's your opinion.


Yes, it is. Do you have a different view?


----------



## KPM (Oct 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, it is. Do you have a different view?



He does!  But lately he is also the king of the drive by "one liner."  So maybe he'll tell you his view.  Maybe not!


----------



## Steve (Oct 28, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------
> That's your opinion.


For some reason, this reminds me of the back and forth between Jesus and Pilate in Jesus Christ Superstar.

"Are you king of the Jews?" "Your words, not mine."  "What do you mean by that?   That is not an answer!"






I haven't listened to this in a long time...  I think I'll bring it back out.    The exchange is a little ways in.   Pilate asks a long question and Jesus is just like, "nope."   Trolls the roman with in line answers that don't say anything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> For some reason, this reminds me of the back and forth between Jesus and Pilate in Jesus Christ Superstar.
> 
> "Are you king of the Jews?" "Your words, not mine."  "What do you mean by that?   That is not an answer!"
> 
> ...


I was in that show in college (Simon). That brings back memories, Steve. One of my favorite exchanges.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I'm not seeing what the boxing guard has to do with what I was talking about, ...


What I'm trying to say is, it's easier to establish a clinch from the CMA strategy than from the boxing strategy.

- Boxing is a pure striking art. In boxing, a punch is just a punch.
- CMA is a mix of striking art and grappling art. In CMA, a punch is a punch followed by a "pull".

IMO, to integrate a pure striking art (such as boxing) and a pure grappling art (such as BJJ), something are missing. One of the missing elements is the "pull" after the "punch". Of course with boxing gloves, it's hard to pull after punch.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 28, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Depends on which wing chun you are talking about/



There is a WC system that covers grappling as extensively as Bjj (or a similar grappling system)?

BTW, a Bjj exponent who cross trains in Wing Chun (or any striking system) is going to have an advantage over someone who has only trained in Bjj.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> BTW, a Bjj exponent who cross trains in Wing Chun (or any striking system) is going to have an advantage over someone who has only trained in Bjj.


The WC "double Tan Shou" can be used as zombie's arms. When your opponent extends both of his arms, it's pretty difficult to punch on his head. When you punch, your zombie opponent only need to extend his

- left arm between your right arm and your head.
- right arm between your left arm and your head.

He can establish a successful clinch. As far as I know, this strategy does not exist in boxing.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 28, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I'm trying to say is, it's easier to establish a clinch from the CMA strategy than from the boxing strategy.
> 
> - Boxing is a pure striking art. In boxing, a punch is just a punch.
> - CMA is a mix of striking art and grappling art. In CMA, a punch is a punch followed by a "pull".
> ...



Again, the integration point is the *clinch*. Boxers know how to set up the clinch, and Jiujiteiros know how to throw and perform takedowns from the clinch. 

Hell, a classic saying in Gracie jiujitsu is the following; "If you don't have a good clinch, you don't have good Jiujitsu".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Boxers know how to set up the clinch, ...


May be I should say that CMA can set up clinch faster than boxing does. 

Many of my guys came from western wrestling background. They don't want to train any striking art. How to establish a clinch ASAP is always one of my main interest. The WC "Tan Shou" is a good tool to achieve that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 28, 2016)

I may have put up this clip before. The WC "Bon Shou" is very useful in clinch.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 28, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be I should say that CMA can set up clinch faster than boxing does.



Well we would need more evidence of that. The vast majority of professional fighters utilize the boxer or the muay thai clinch. I think even Sanda fighters use the boxer-style clinch.



> Many of my guys came from western wrestling background. They don't want to train any striking art. How to establish a clinch ASAP is always one of my main interest. The WC "Tan Shou" is a good tool to achieve that.



Check out Gracie jiujitsu fundamentals, and Royce Gracie in the early UFCs. Plenty examples of slipping the strike and establishing the clinch from a grappler stand point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 29, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Well we would need more evidence of that. The vast majority of professional fighters utilize the boxer or the muay thai clinch. I think even Sanda fighters use the boxer-style clinch.


I can't prove it yet. May be our next generation will be able to prove it someday.

- A spends 100% effort trying to punch his opponent's head. Even if there is a clinch opportunity, if A can use that opportunity to punch, he will use it for punch.
- B spends 100% effort trying to establish a clinch. Even if there is a punch opportunity, if B can use that opportunity to establish a clinch, B will use it for clinch.

By using this simple logic, B will have better chance to obtain clinch than A will.


----------



## Nobody Important (Oct 29, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> Agree with that last part.
> 
> To use this as a point of discussion, in my experience 2-handed chi sau (taan/bong/fook) isn't something we look to do at all - it's something we _have_ to do because our opponent was able to force us into that position/timeframe. It is used to stop the fight from going into grabbing/grappling, not as a way to enter it. Now, I guess if someone wants to give up the advantage chi sau offers in that situation to agree to grapple/wrestle, that's on them. But IMO it's not efficient use of WC principles, strategy & tactics.
> 
> ...



Good post explaining the classical approach and use of the Rolling platform of Chi Sau. I agree with this assessment, but I can also see the validity of grappling when Chi Sau structure for this position/time frame fails to be advantageous and "Clinching" is required to stop the further degradation of the position/structure. Failure under heavy prolonged pressure is inevitable IMO. In this event I could see changing the purpose of Chi Sau in its classical approach to more of a "Pummeling" method that would lend more benefit to grappling than boxing. In Yuen Family Wing Chun we have this secondary approach built in because of our heavy use of Sut Gow and Kam Na techniques. Without free transformation in how Chi Sau could be used it wouldn't be possible. However, it should also be noted that our main form of Chi Sau practice is not the Rolling Platform, but the Two Handed Circling Arm Platform, which allows for adaptation of this transition in pressure/position/distance without affecting approach or use. How Two Hand Circling Arm Chi Sau is used is completely decided by the Inside Line, its all about relative proximity to the opponent, control of the Centerline and leverage over the power side. It is not bound by the constraints of the Rolling Platform and is more adaptable in some respects. I would have to admit though that the Rolling Platform IMO, is better suited for development of boxing structure than the Circling Platform.


----------



## KPM (Oct 29, 2016)

^^^^^^^ Something similar in Pin Sun Wing Chun


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 29, 2016)

Steve said:


> For some reason, this reminds me of the back and forth between Jesus and Pilate in Jesus Christ Superstar.
> 
> "Are you king of the Jews?" "Your words, not mine."  "What do you mean by that?   That is not an answer!"
> 
> ...



For some reason this reminds me of a scene from Woody Allen's LOVE AND DEATH. He plays a Russian at the time when Napoleon was invading the country. (Also, it is worth mentioning that he has a brother named Ivan.) Woody is, of course, a pacifist and does not want to fight, so his fellow Russians get on his case about it, like so:

RUSSIAN: What are you going to do when the French rape your sister????

WOODY: I don't have a sister.

RUSSIAN: THAT'S no answer!

WOODY: Who are they going to rape? Ivan? They'll throw up!

Off-topic, but hey...it's not like thread drift is uncommon 'round these parts.

Anyway, yeah...chi sao...like I said before, middle ground between punching and grappling range. Some replies here make me believe some are in agreement with me. Of course, some of this stuff can't be talked about. It has to be seen, like Flying Crane said somewhere else. Too bad that can't happen. Maybe somehow, somewhere, someday, we could host one massive Martial Talk get-together/seminar/training session type of event.

Yeah, that would rock!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2016)

Chi sau comes into play when you hand fight basically. which is also a grappling game.


----------



## guy b (Oct 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Chi sau comes into play when you hand fight basically. which is also a grappling game.



Hand fighting in grappling and chi sau are the opposite of each other. Entirely useless for grappling.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> Hand fighting in grappling and chi sau are the opposite of each other. Entirely useless for grappling.



Any particular reason why? 

I don't know...... mabye an example or a demonstration of what you are on about here?


----------



## guy b (Oct 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Any particular reason why?



Reactions built in chi sau are the opposite of those required for grappling hand fighting. Chi sau is not an application drill.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> Reactions built in chi sau are the opposite of those required for grappling hand fighting. Chi sau is not an application drill.



Can you give an example of that?


----------



## guy b (Oct 29, 2016)

Example: grappling hand fighting seeks to establish wrist and elbow control using hands. VT seeks to clear lines to hit using elbows and to build structure for hitting via cooperative exchange of force. Chi sau a drill not used in fighting, hand fighting used directly in fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> Example: grappling hand fighting seeks to establish wrist and elbow control using hands. VT seeks to clear lines to hit using elbows and to build structure for hitting via cooperative exchange of force. Chi sau a drill not used in fighting, hand fighting used directly in fighting.



And if you grapple with strikes?

The intent of hand fighting in part is not to secure the limb but to utilise it as a gateway to whatever target you are going for.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> Example: grappling hand fighting seeks to establish wrist and elbow control using hands. VT seeks to clear lines to hit using elbows and to build structure for hitting via cooperative exchange of force. Chi sau a drill not used in fighting, hand fighting used directly in fighting.



This is the same in TWC.  As a matter of fact we sometimes say that WC is having issues in some quarters because it is becoming a "Chi Sau Culture.". Thing is though, this doesn't appear to be something in any WC Lineage.  It appears, imo to have been inserted by a method of teaching.  Since most schools, at least is the US, don't teach in a "combative" manner, Chi Sau becomes a form of competition as much as training in many of these schools and this, imo, creates the issue.


----------



## guy b (Oct 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And if you grapple with strikes?
> 
> The intent of hand fighting in part is not to secure the limb but to utilise it as a gateway to whatever target you are going for.



I know about hand fighting having done quite a lot of bjj and holding a purple belt. Chi sau is not applicable because (a) it is a drill, not an application platform and (b) because the strategy of VT is almost exactly the opposite of any sensible grappling strategy. Arms in bjj are handles, things you want to grab so that you can use them, preferably in a way that means you have an advantage over the opponent via leverage (e.g wrist control, wrist and elbow control). Arms in VT are things you want to clear if they get in the way. Chasing hands is an error. Mixing grappling and VT is a recipe for low success in your grappling, and confusion/failure in your VT.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> I know about hand fighting having done quite a lot of bjj and holding a purple belt. Chi sau is not applicable because (a) it is a drill, not an application platform and (b) because the strategy of VT is almost exactly the opposite of any sensible grappling strategy. Arms in bjj are handles, things you want to grab so that you can use them, preferably in a way that means you have an advantage over the opponent via leverage (e.g wrist control, wrist and elbow control). Arms in VT are things you want to clear if they get in the way. Chasing hands is an error. Mixing grappling and VT is a recipe for low success in your grappling, and confusion/failure in your VT.




We are actually in agreement here man, which is kind of a shocker. it is just a drill. 

I would add that, for my lineage, it is also about sensitivity.  Learning to feel your opponent's structure.  This provides you with information that is useful in a fight.  I didn't believe it until the first night I did it with my eyes closed.  That made me focus on what I felt and there was a lot of information there. 

It is this information that I think useful in grappling.  You learn to feel weakness in structure, which is VERY important in grappling. We may disagree on that but in the end, yes, it's a drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 29, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It is this information that I think useful in grappling. You learn to feel weakness in structure, which is VERY important in grappling. We may disagree on that but in the end, yes, it's a drill.


That makes a lot of sense. I use drills of a similar nature to help students develop that sensitivity. It's important in any grappling - moreso in the aiki arts.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> I know about hand fighting having done quite a lot of bjj and holding a purple belt. Chi sau is not applicable because (a) it is a drill, not an application platform and (b) because the strategy of VT is almost exactly the opposite of any sensible grappling strategy. Arms in bjj are handles, things you want to grab so that you can use them, preferably in a way that means you have an advantage over the opponent via leverage (e.g wrist control, wrist and elbow control). Arms in VT are things you want to clear if they get in the way. Chasing hands is an error. Mixing grappling and VT is a recipe for low success in your grappling, and confusion/failure in your VT.



Bjj is just a drill to refine your ground work for mna. 

But it also has application. They are not mutually exclusive.

Otherwise the strategy has probably evolved from VT a bit by the time it gets to grappling application.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 29, 2016)

Why can't you just design your own Chi Shou drills to meet with your own need?


----------



## guy b (Oct 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Bjj is just a drill to refine your ground work for mna.
> 
> But it also has application. They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Otherwise the strategy has probably evolved from VT a bit by the time it gets to grappling application.



BJJ is not a drill, it is a system. The movements of BJJ are directly applicable to fighting, the movements of chi sau not.


----------



## KPM (Oct 30, 2016)

guy b said:


> Hand fighting in grappling and chi sau are the opposite of each other. Entirely useless for grappling.


 
Maybe Chi Sau as conceptualized in WSLVT.   But again, I think the problem here is the one that is repeated over and over.   Guy is talking specifically about the way they do Chi Sau in  WSLVT, while everyone else is just talking about Chi Sau in general.


----------



## guy b (Oct 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> Maybe Chi Sau as conceptualized in WSLVT.   But again, I think the problem here is the one that is repeated over and over.   Guy is talking specifically about the way they do Chi Sau in  WSLVT, while everyone else is just talking about Chi Sau in general.



Correct, other systems may differ.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 30, 2016)

guy b said:


> Correct, other systems may differ.



You actually agree with a different viewpoint. That's new.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Bjj is just a drill to refine your ground work for mna.
> 
> But it also has application. They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Otherwise the strategy has probably evolved from VT a bit by the time it gets to grappling application.


That's an interesting interpretation. So, we could use the word "drill" for any physical (in this case) practice that has a final motive outside the repetitive practice. Yeah, I can see where even free-rolling in BJJ - considered over the long run - is repetitive enough to fit that description when the end goal is MMA competition. And that same comparison could be generalized to shorter drills.

A bit of a reach, but you make a good point with it. Drills may or may not be directly applicable (chi sau arguably isn't, BJJ arguably is), but they can still produce results in application.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's an interesting interpretation. So, we could use the word "drill" for any physical (in this case) practice that has a final motive outside the repetitive practice. Yeah, I can see where even free-rolling in BJJ - considered over the long run - is repetitive enough to fit that description when the end goal is MMA competition. And that same comparison could be generalized to shorter drills.
> 
> A bit of a reach, but you make a good point with it. Drills may or may not be directly applicable (chi sau arguably isn't, BJJ arguably is), but they can still produce results in application.



So really in competition, the drills are always about how the fighter approaches things. Always wondered if a fighter can actually improve with drills. For example the left hook could be weak, to the point of constantly innfective. Could constant drilling really affect that, or would just polishing to the point on a basic level. Just curious on you're take on that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> So really in competition, the drills are always about how the fighter approaches things. Always wondered if a fighter can actually improve with drills. For example the left hook could be weak, to the point of constantly innfective. Could constant drilling really affect that, or would just polishing to the point on a basic level. Just curious on you're take on that?


If someone is weak on a basic area - like a jab for a competitor - where it is affecting their outcome, some type of drill seems almost a requirement. Perhaps a variety of drills that require the use of that weak area, improving both the form (making the jab better, more effective) and the application (recognition of where it should be used, incorporating it into combinations, etc.).


----------



## KPM (Oct 30, 2016)

guy b said:


> Correct, other systems may differ.



So what Guy is saying....is that in WSLVT the system has been optimized to deliver the punch.  Chi Sau is all about setting up for and clearing the way for the punch.  It would not fit the strategy of the system to try and use Chi Sau as a form of grappling or even as a transition to grappling because this is not needed for delivering the punch.   Anything done other than clearing the way for the punch is "chasing hands" by WSLVT definition..... and this would include trying to achieve any kind of arm drag, tie up, joint lock, etc.  These things are not needed nor desirable if your one goal and intent is to land the punch.   Guy is also saying that if he cannot successfully land the punch and is forced into a grappling situation he is going to switch to his BJJ training, because BJJ is a much better grappling system than anything derived from Wing Chun.  And this is true.

Other versions of Wing Chun may not have this specifically designed strategy for the fight, and so may see things more broadly and therefore use their Chi Sau a bit differently. Nothing wrong with that!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 30, 2016)

KPM said:


> So what Guy is saying....is that in WSLVT the system has been optimized to deliver the punch.  Chi Sau is all about setting up for and clearing the way for the punch.  It would not fit the strategy of the system to try and use Chi Sau as a form of grappling or even as a transition to grappling because this is not needed for delivering the punch.   Anything done other than clearing the way for the punch is "chasing hands" by WSLVT definition..... and this would include trying to achieve any kind of arm drag, tie up, joint lock, etc.  These things are not needed nor desirable if your one goal and intent is to land the punch.   Guy is also saying that if he cannot successfully land the punch and is forced into a grappling situation he is going to switch to his BJJ training, because BJJ is a much better grappling system than anything derived from Wing Chun.  And this is true.
> 
> Other versions of Wing Chun may not have this specifically designed strategy for the fight, and so may see things more broadly and therefore use their Chi Sau a bit differently. Nothing wrong with that!



Yeah some systems have evolved the chi sau concept to different aplications.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah some systems have evolved the chi sau concept to different aplications.


With Chi Shou as the starting point, you should be able to modify it into many useful training drills.

For example, when both of your arms contact with both of your opponent's arms, if you can

1. separate hands - use a left downward parry, followed by an upper ward wrap, along with a right comb hair,
2. mantis arms - put your both hands on top of his both elbow joints,
3. arms jam - put your right hand on his right wrist, put your left hand on his right elbow joint, guide his right arm to his left (your right), and jam his own left arm,
4. arm tuck - use your right hand to control his left wrist, use your left hand to control his right wrist, guide his left arm under his own right arm, press his right arm on his left arm, free your right hand,
5. ...

You can execute almost any attack after that. Do those drills exist in any MA system? May be not. But it should not stop you from creating it yourself.


----------



## wingchun100 (Nov 1, 2016)

The thing is, I don't think anyone argued Chi Sao training is a replacement for learning a grappling style. I don't recall what everyone said specifically, but I do know that the point I was making is the sensitivity from Chi Sao could HELP if you were facing a grappler.


----------



## anerlich (Nov 15, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's much harder to use "short range boxing guard" to wrap your opponent's arms to establish a successful clinch than to use the "long range WC Tan Shou guard".
> 
> When you use
> 
> ...



I disagree. I want my arms close to my head, in fact, hands on my hairline. I can close on the boxer and absorb his strikes with my arms. Once my forearms or shoulder are on his body, I can clinch pretty safely. Yes, I have tested this.

I don't want my arms away from my body with tan sao etc. because IMO it gives the opponent too many opportunities to close and clinch.



drop bear said:


> Bjj is just a drill to refine your ground work for mna.



Seriously? I've got a black belt in a drill to refine my groundwork for MMA? (Unless "mna" is something different). All the Gracie Combatives, and the standing self defense techniques I learned from Steve Maxwell and many others are just drills for MMA?


----------



## anerlich (Nov 15, 2016)

KPM said:


> Note that the neck control he likes to use is right out of the dummy form.



It's a collar tie right out of wrestling. Most people's dummy neck controls don't make use of the elbow the way he does in the vid, like wrestlers and MT fighters do.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Seriously? I've got a black belt in a drill to refine my groundwork for MMA? (Unless "mna" is something different). All the Gracie Combatives, and the standing self defense techniques I learned from Steve Maxwell and many others are just drills for MMA?



Yep.....

If it is any consolation there are chi sau champions out there as well.


----------



## anerlich (Nov 15, 2016)

Suffice to say many would disagree with you. Except about the chi sao champions.


----------



## guy b (Nov 15, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Suffice to say many would disagree with you. Except about the chi sao champions.



Pointless trolling from drop bear who undoubtedly has spent very little time doing either mma, bjj or ving tsun and most of his time having silly arguments on forums


----------



## KPM (Nov 15, 2016)

anerlich said:


> It's a collar tie right out of wrestling. Most people's dummy neck controls don't make use of the elbow the way he does in the vid, like wrestlers and MT fighters do.



Ok.  But that is how I learned it.  The neck pull dropping in the elbow between the arms of the dummy.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2016)

guy b said:


> Pointless trolling



Fixed that for you.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 15, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ok.  But that is how I learned it.  The neck pull dropping in the elbow between the arms of the dummy.



I learned it similarly...but it is more of a sinking of your horse tied with/to a downward pulling elbow (simultaneously )
...Sadly, there are some who throw their butt backwards away from the jong when performing this movement.


----------



## anerlich (Nov 15, 2016)

In wrestling, it's done with forward pressure as well as a pulling movement. The elbow on the chest controls the distance. The dummy neck pull is more like a wrestling snap down IMO. I guess what I was trying to say was that Alan could just as easily have picked up the control from wrestling or Muay Thai as WC, and that the movement is not unique to WC.


----------



## KPM (Nov 15, 2016)

^^^^^ I never said it  was unique to Wing Chun.   I only singled it out for attention in this clip because it DOES come from the dummy form (at least some versions of the form) and therefore is part of Wing Chun.  So it doesn't have to be seen as an "add on" from wrestling.


----------



## anerlich (Nov 15, 2016)

I didn't say or mean to imply that you said it was unique to Wing Chun. I just pointed out that it wasn't.


----------



## dudewingchun (Nov 16, 2016)

So many martial arts' have the same techniques just used slightly different and with different intentions, though we all have the same type of body, there are only a finite amount of techniques that we can come up with, so of course lots of arts will have the same looking technique.

 Alan teaches wing chun for his standup. Why can't people accept that? You don't even know the theory behind the movements so how can you judge?


----------



## guy b (Nov 16, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Alan teaches wing chun for his standup. Why can't people accept that? You don't even know the theory behind the movements so how can you judge?



I can accept that Alan teaches a system he calls wing chun, although it doesn't appear to resemble the VT system I know in terms of fundamental ideas, and seems like quite a different system. 

I suppose some of the issue that people have with clips of fighters vs clips of training is that Alan shows what appear to be applications in his videos (e.g. bouncing people with force flow) which then don't appear in fights. I don't think anyone is saying that Alan's fighters are bad or anything, they appear to be effective strikers. 

Is that ok?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> I can accept that Alan teaches a system he calls wing chun, although it doesn't appear to resemble the VT system I know in terms of fundamental ideas, and seems like quite a different system.
> 
> I suppose some of the issue that people have with clips of fighters vs clips of training is that Alan shows what appear to be applications in his videos (e.g. bouncing people with force flow) which then don't appear in fights. I don't think anyone is saying that Alan's fighters are bad or anything, they appear to be effective strikers.
> 
> Is that ok?



Force flow like all fighting is a mechanical process. Many systems teach exactly the same effect without ever having a clue what force flow is.

So in one aspect force flow is a made up idea.

But these made up ideas are designed to convey and train a concept that may be difficult to grasp otherwise.

So in boxing as a quick concept. Sometimes you may have to train by holding a tennis ball under your chin.

This is not designed to carry tennis balls around while you are fighting. But to teach you to keep your chin down.

The question then becomes not whether the concepts are correct.  But whether the concepts are the best way of acquiring skills.

Fundamental ideas are a training tool.  Not the end result. You may need to expand your idea of what is a fundamental idea.

Mma has this concept layered on top of its other concepts.

You gotta know the rules before you break the rules.


----------



## guy b (Nov 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Force flow like all fighting is a mechanical process. Many systems teach exactly the same effect without ever having a clue what force flow is.



What is force flow?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> What is force flow?



Ultimately it is a tennis ball.


----------



## guy b (Nov 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ultimately it is a tennis ball.



I understand that you think it is like holding a tennis ball under your chin. But what does it entail?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> I understand that you think it is like holding a tennis ball under your chin. But what does it entail?



It is a way of conveying an idea it isn't actually anything.


----------



## guy b (Nov 16, 2016)

What is the idea?


----------



## dudewingchun (Nov 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> I can accept that Alan teaches a system he calls wing chun, although it doesn't appear to resemble the VT system I know in terms of fundamental ideas, and seems like quite a different system.
> 
> I suppose some of the issue that people have with clips of fighters vs clips of training is that Alan shows what appear to be applications in his videos (e.g. bouncing people with force flow) which then don't appear in fights. I don't think anyone is saying that Alan's fighters are bad or anything, they appear to be effective strikers.
> 
> Is that ok?



Yea obviously Alan does not teach WSL Ving Tsun. 

I see your point, trained wrestlers are hard to throw around because they also know how to use their body and everyone in mma knows grappling and clinch work. If you saw one of his fighters going against a dude on the street or someone who isn't a grappler they would be throwing them around. Can you pull off an armbar perfectly against someone resisting who also knows what to do?


----------



## KPM (Nov 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> I suppose some of the issue that people have with clips of fighters vs clips of training is that Alan shows what appear to be applications in his videos (e.g. bouncing people with force flow) which then don't appear in fights.



And likewise, we have never really seen a WSLVT person showing all the Bong/Lop cycle defending and striking that  we see in every single demo video of WSLVT actually being used effectively in any fights.


----------



## KPM (Nov 16, 2016)

guy b said:


> What is the idea?



Now you are obviously trolling.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> And likewise, we have never really seen a WSLVT person showing all the Bong/Lop cycle defending and striking that  we see in every single demo video of WSLVT actually being used effectively in any fights.



Why would you expect to? Abstract and mutual drilling is not application practice. Who's going to do a _bong_/_laap_ cycle with us in a fight?! 

The unbalancing "bridge" skills Alan shows in _chi-sau_ he says are directly applicable to free-fighting, but we never see that in their team's fights.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 17, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I see your point, trained wrestlers are hard to throw around because they also know how to use their body and everyone in mma knows grappling and clinch work. If you saw one of his fighters going against a dude on the street or someone who isn't a grappler they would be throwing them around. Can you pull off an armbar perfectly against someone resisting who also knows what to do?



Armbars have won MMA fights.

The unbalancing "bridge" skills, which Alan says are directly applicable in fighting, have never once even appeared in their MMA fights.

If it is only practical against untrained people, why would it be a part of their MMA training?


----------



## guy b (Nov 17, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Yea obviously Alan does not teach WSL Ving Tsun.
> 
> I see your point, trained wrestlers are hard to throw around because they also know how to use their body and everyone in mma knows grappling and clinch work. If you saw one of his fighters going against a dude on the street or someone who isn't a grappler they would be throwing them around. Can you pull off an armbar perfectly against someone resisting who also knows what to do?



I think the problem with that analogy is that arm bars are regularly pulled off in MMA competition against people who know how to defend them. I haven't seen the force flow except in application demos.


----------



## guy b (Nov 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Now you are obviously trolling.



Drop bear appears to be pretending that he knows what "force flow" is. Since others have had problems describing what it means, it would be useful to hear drop bear's definition.


----------



## guy b (Nov 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> And likewise, we have never really seen a WSLVT person showing all the Bong/Lop cycle defending and striking that  we see in every single demo video of WSLVT actually being used effectively in any fights.



That drill isn't an application. Alan shows applications. Completely different


----------



## drop bear (Nov 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> What is the idea?



That you need to be structurally in a better position than the other guy. 

Force flow kind of explains this by giving and recieving energy with a whole bunch of sensitivity concepts.


----------



## Nobody Important (Nov 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> That you need to be structurally in a better position than the other guy.
> 
> Force flow kind of explains this by giving and recieving energy with a whole bunch of sensitivity concepts.


Personally, I view it as the ability to adapt to changes based upon the concepts. To not be restrained by a shape/technique that embodies a concept, but concepts that can enliven a shape/technique.


----------



## anerlich (Nov 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> What is force flow?



A marginally successful exercise in marketing undertaken by amateurs. Keep your hand on your wallet.


----------



## anerlich (Nov 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> That you need to be structurally in a better position than the other guy.



That's pretty much a requirement for success in any sort of fighting. Though sometimes even the lesser skilled fighter can get lucky.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 17, 2016)

anerlich said:


> That's pretty much a requirement for success in any sort of fighting. Though sometimes even the lesser skilled fighter can get lucky.



Yeah.  If some of our guys wanted someone against a wall then they are going to stay there.  And they have described force flow as full retard.

But you sometimes have to get these concepts across in some pretty strange ways. 

I was helping people with their double leg the other day.  And the amount of pain and anguish that goes into having the correct structure and energy when trying to do it right is phenomenal.


----------



## dudewingchun (Nov 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> I think the problem with that analogy is that arm bars are regularly pulled off in MMA competition against people who know how to defend them. I haven't seen the force flow except in application demos.



Yea probably wasn't the best analogy lol. But I just mean people who know wrestling  have their own sort of force flow which is really good, you can't just throw around a wrestler, but it lets us compete and win against them. If some guy on the street who doesn't train just attacked me I think I would throw him around much easier.

Just the same as all WSL VT we have seen is Chi sao or unrealistic " sparring".


----------

