# Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?



## geezer

On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:

_Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_

It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Flying Crane

Has nobody ever been able to defend themselves using their wing chun training?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The advantage of YZKYM is both of your fists can have the same reach. But you can do that with "cross stance" - right leg forward with left hand forward.

I have always believed that the YZKYM has the following weakness:

- Both legs are too close and vulnerable for "double legs".
- Heel pointing out and vulnerable for "foot sweep".
- Inward bending knee joint is vulnerable for side kick.
- Open your chest and belly for kick.
- Prevent you from turning your body to have "maximum reach".
- ...

So why train YZKYM if you don't use it in fighting?

The WC system was created in the south part of China. There were not many wrestlers there. The YZKYM is a good stance to maintain balance on boat. But on the dry land, that's different story.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> Has nobody ever been able to defend themselves using their wing chun training?


Yes, I'm sure they have, but not to the level it is promoted to, or it being "recognizable" as Wing Chun that's  being used. There are predefined ideas as to what Wing Chun should look like in action based on the theory it promotes. As such, the only defineable contest that illustrates Wing Chun in action is Chi Sau, and we all know how applicable that is to an actual fight. Since Chi Sau and prearrainged drills are the only free flow and live action exercises that can also include pressure, they have come to define the epitome of Wing Chun movement.

I am primarily a long fist practitioner, Pak Hok Pai. That being said, it is important to understand the spectrum of movement offered by different arts. Pak Hok Pai is at one end of this spectrum and Wing Chun on the other. Basic Pak Hok Pai represents gross motor skill, basic Wing Chun represents fine motor skill. Each has limitations to their use, including environment and purpose. Combined motor skill is a method in the middle, all purpose if you will.

Fine motor skill can be defined as combined manipulations involving a fair amount if dexterity (short range) Combined motor skill is the ability to perform two or more actions simultaneously with some dexterity (middle range), and gross motor skill is big swinging actions with little to no dexterity (long range).

When under heavy duress, fine motor skill is the first thing you lose, however, gross motor skill may not be sufficuent. Our goal is to strive for maintenance of combined motor skill. Learning how to refine large movements to better respond in stressful situations where our fight or flight response dictates our actions and is important to survival.

To me, Wing Chun is a tool to help develop this and not a stand alone method. It is said that Wing Chun was developed as a refinement of traditonal Siu Lam arts, which were predominately long fist methods. What better way to learn a system quicker than to develop a method (based on structural mechanics) that teaches you how to refine and maximize your technique. Many traditional arts take an unnecessarily long time to go from big beginner movements to small and refined advanced movements. And in many cases if a student didn't stick around or if the teacher died, they never learned how to refine their technique, because they were never taught, and passed on only what they knew. Throw in cultural trapping and you have a method that never evolves the way it was meant to.

Wing Chun, IMO, is an art developed for this very reason, refinement.


----------



## Headhunter

If you can use it in a fight it works and since there are probably millions of people who do wing chun and it's impossible to ask them all so who knowsknows


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> Yes, I'm sure they have, but not to the level it is promoted to, or it being "recognizable" as Wing Chun that's  being used. There are predefined ideas as to what Wing Chun should look like in action based on the theory it promotes. As such, the only defineable contest that illustrates Wing Chun in action is Chi Sau, and we all know how applicable that is to an actual fight. Since Chi Sau and prearrainged drills are the only free flow and live action exercises that can also include pressure, they have come to define the epitome of Wing Chun movement.
> 
> I am primarily a long fist practitioner, Pak Hok Pai. That being said, it is important to understand the spectrum of movement offered by different arts. Pak Hok Pai is at one end of this spectrum and Wing Chun on the other. Basic Pak Hok Pai represents gross motor skill, basic Wing Chun represents fine motor skill. Each has limitations to their use, including environment and purpose. Combined motor skill is a method in the middle, all purpose if you will.
> 
> Fine motor skill can be defined as combined manipulations involving a fair amount if dexterity (short range) Combined motor skill is the ability to perform two or more actions simultaneously with some dexterity (middle range), and gross motor skill is big swinging actions with little to no dexterity (long range).
> 
> When under heavy duress, fine motor skill is the first thing you lose, however, gross motor skill may not be sufficuent. Our goal is to strive for maintenance of combined motor skill. Learning how to refine large movements to better respond in stressful situations where our fight or flight response dictates our actions and is important to survival.
> 
> To me, Wing Chun is a tool to help develop this and not a stand alone method. It is said that Wing Chun was developed as a refinement of traditonal Siu Lam arts, which were predominately long fist methods. What better way to learn a system quicker than to develop a method (based on structural mechanics) that teaches you how to refine and maximize your technique. Many traditional arts take an unnecessarily long time to go from big beginner movements to small and refined advanced movements. And in many cases if a student didn't stick around or if the teacher died, they never learned how to refine their technique, because they were never taught, and passed on only what they knew. Throw in cultural trapping and you have a method that never evolves the way it was meant to.
> 
> Wing Chun, IMO, is an art developed for this very reason, refinement.


I also train Bac Hoc, and I guess we have had different experiences.  There is a lot of gross motor training, as you mention, but that's not it.  It is a unique approach to training, but I don't find it at all limiting in how and where it can be used and applied.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> I also train Bac Hoc, and I guess we have had different experiences.  There is a lot of gross motor training, as you mention, but that's not it.  It is a unique approach to training, but I don't find it at all limiting in how and where it can be used and applied.


I was speaking comparitively and of the basic level. I understand Pak Hok has smaller movements, but it's core are the large swinging punches, vastly different to Wing Chun punching. 
And I will disagree a bit, an art like Pak Hok isn't very useful on a crowded train or bus, an art like Wing Chun has the advantage here, out in the open, I'll take something like Pak Hok all day. Use is limited to environment.


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


At the risk of offending pretty much everyone..yes..yes it is. I see wing Chun as a condiment rather than a meal as it pertains to combat. 

By that I mean it contains many useful and deadly principles that are very much useful for fighting, but the classical approach isn't too effective. The centerline guard doesn't work against anyone that can box, the footwork is too immobile,  and it is too limited in approach vis a vis any range besides trapping range.

With all that said, I absolutely love WC as a tool to break out just as soon as tie up/trapping range happens, and WC punching is easily modified for longer range hand attacks and quicker footwork(think jkd)


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *So why train YZKYM if you don't use it in fighting?*



_*Why? *_ First understand that YGKYM is *NOT* our_ fighting stance!  _....at least in my YM VT lineage.

However, it _is_ useful. We often call it our_ "training stance"_ in that it strengthens the adductor muscles (see the "squeezing thighs" shown in the diagram you provided) and it trains the essential position and structure used as we move through _all _our stances and steps. We fight by turning and stepping (again reference the diagram above!) and in so doing are constantly passing through this position ,or at least using the structure and adduction it trains.

So, once I am engaged (not just standing back and waiting) my typical fighting stance is with one foot forward, advancing on my opponent unless I'm being forced back or to the side. In that case I'm probably in a turning stance.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> I was speaking comparitively and of the basic level. I understand Pak Hok has smaller movements, but it's core are the large swinging punches, vastly different to Wing Chun punching.
> And I will disagree a bit, an art like Pak Hok isn't very useful on a crowded train or bus, an art like Wing Chun has the advantage here, out in the open, I'll take something like Pak Hok all day. Use is limited to environment.



See, and here is where we disagree.  Bac Hoc is useful anywhere, even a crowded or cramped situation.  It is adaptable, movement does not need to be big.

That is a different topic from this thread, but I do see a relevance here.  In my opinion, perhaps if there is a mistake, it is in believing that one must look a certain way when using their martial skills.  Technique in a fight can look like anything.  If the principles of the system are in place and are driving the technique, then it can look like anything.  It CAN look like a "proper" technique, but it also can look like something else, even not like a proper technique.

So in terms of wing chun, it does not matter what it looks like in a real fight.  If the principles are there, then it is wing chun.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> See, and here is where we disagree.  Bac Hoc is useful anywhere, even a crowded or cramped situation.  It is adaptable, movement does not need to be big.
> 
> That is a different topic from this thread, but I do see a relevance here.  In my opinion, perhaps if there is a mistake, it is in believing that one must look a certain way when using their martial skills.  Technique in a fight can look like anything.  If the principles of the system are in place and are driving the technique, then it can look like anything.  It CAN look like a "proper" technique, but it also can look like something else, even not like a proper technique.
> 
> So in terms of wing chun, it does not matter what it looks like in a real fight.  If the principles are there, then it is wing chun.


I agree, never said Pak Hok, or any other art, isn't adaptable. Actually, I was always told that Pak Hok is based upon a 2 inch circle, this is something though that isn't usually stressed until introduction of Cotton Needle training. Sadly many do not get there. It, as a system progresses, from large movement to small movement and from hard techniques to soft ones. But the progression isn't part of the initial basic training, it comes via advancement into the system proper. The basic system of Lion's Roar is the large movements, its the only thing all the branches(Hop Gar, Pak Hok & Lama) have in common. Anyways, I also agree on your second part, that as long as the principles are present so is the system, however, there has to be some semblance of technique that makes it identifiable as what it represents, otherwise, whats the sense in different systems that use relatively similar principles and theory. Style structure is also important in delivering the technique, its what hones the weapon.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> I see wing Chun as a condiment rather than a meal as it pertains to combat.



When I read comments like this I suspect that the author either has _limited experience in WC_, or has a _limited notion of what WC entails_. Not to be insulting, since you may be a very effective martial artist. But WC is much more than a "condiment", and if viewed that way will probably not function well. It is not a grab-bag of infighting tools to be bolted onto a generic, non-WC base!

On the other extreme, you will find many WC "believers" who will insist that WC/VT is all you need!!! That is an equally narrow and flawed perspective IMO.

My _personal _belief is that VT/WC is a very well _integrated system of stand-up close-range fighting_ that can be very effective. To be a _complete martial art,_ however, you also need to have a _long range game_ and a good _grappling game_. That is to say a more _JKD-like frame of mind_. That's leaving aside the issue of bladed weapons and firearms which is often how people approach self-defense where I live.



Now let's be brutally honest as to why VT/WC is not more successful in fighting and or competition: I'd say it boils down to_ who trains it, how it's trained, and the lack of competitive testing. _Let's look at each of these factors:

_First,_ the majority of people training VT/WC are like _me_ -- basically hobbyists who train a few days a week, are not all that talented, and have no interest in hard-core fighting.

_Second, _most WC/VT classes, _just like mine,_ train a lot of drills, a lot of chi-sau, and far too little sparring to be really effective. Remember that our clientele is mostly older professionals who really don't want to get beat up, and they are being taught by _me _--a guy in his sixties who hasn't been a fight since he was in his twenties!

_Third, _The absence of _a competitive arena specific to VT/WT for testing,_ improving and evolving the art regardless of lineage and faith-based beliefs about how our techniques "should" be done based on ideas rooted in the past.

Now many will say that such a venue _already exists _in the form of MMA or Sanda. But MMA has become it's own thing these days, and really isn't the ideal framework for testing individual component arts. Thats why Muay Thai, BJJ, Boxing, and so forth, still have their _own_ competitive formats. VT/WT absolutely needs that too as _one component_ of our training system along with the other training components we already have.

And we need _fewer grandmasters and more good coaches _like Alan Orr and his kind to dissect WC/VT and apply it to an MMA format as well. It may not look like traditional VT/WC but he makes it work, and does a pretty fair job of explaining how his fighters are incorporating WC concepts into their MMA, _however it looks._ That's a damned good start IMO.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> I agree, never said Pak Hok, or any other art, isn't adaptable. Actually, I was always told that Pak Hok is based upon a 2 inch circle, this is something though that isn't usually stressed until introduction of Cotton Needle training. Sadly many do not get there. It, as a system progresses, from large movement to small movement and from hard techniques to soft ones. But the progression isn't part of the initial basic training, it comes via advancement into the system proper. The basic system of Lion's Roar is the large movements, its the only thing all the branches(Hop Gar, Pak Hok & Lama) have in common. Anyways, I also agree on your second part, that as long as the principles are present so is the system, however, there has to be some semblance of technique that makes it identifiable as what it represents, otherwise, whats the sense in different systems that use relatively similar principles and theory. Style structure is also important in delivering the technique, its what hones the weapon.


The different systems are simply training methodologies.  The principles may be similar or the same from one system to another, but the methodology in how they train and develop their skill and understanding of those principles may differ, even dramatically.  That is perfectly ok, as long as the methodology is effective in accomplishing this goal.

Technique is an expression of the principle.  But it is a vehicle to help a student begin to grasp the principle, because the principle is what is really important.  Technique is important in the beginning, but as one understands the principle more and more, the specific technique becomes less important because one understands how to apply the principles to anything they may do.

So a particular system like wing chun or Bac Hoc is a methodology that helps you understand the principles and ultimately that the principles can be universal and can be used in anything you want.  It no longer matters what it looks like.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> The different systems are simply training methodologies.  The principles may be similar or the same from one system to another, but the methodology in how they train and develop their skill and understanding of those principles may differ, even dramatically.  That is perfectly ok, as long as the methodology is effective in accomplishing this goal.
> 
> Technique is an expression of the principle.  But it is a vehicle to help a student begin to grasp the principle, because the principle is what is really important.  Technique is important in the beginning, but as one understands the principle more and more, the specific technique becomes less important because one understands how to apply the principles to anything they may do.
> 
> So a particular system like wing chun or Bac Hoc is a methodology that helps you understand the principles and ultimately that the principles can be universal and can be used in anything you want.  It no longer matters what it looks like.


And my point is, most never get there. This isn't something taught from day one. Most people train to a certain point and stop. Some go on, but dwell too deep into hypothetical or abstract theory, believing this knowledge gives them advantage in a fight. Real fighting is about conditioning, realistic sparring and good, solid basics, not intermediate or advanced understanding of principles.

Herein lies the problem, just as Geezer pointed out, instead of focusing on actual realistic and applicable fighting methods, arts like Wing Chun, tend to focus on Chi Sau and drills because they are hobbyists, not fighters. Problem is, those hobbyists go on to teach fighting, at least to an extent. This methodology is evident in what is stressed, hence that is what is taught. Wing Chun from a Chi Sau perspective, because that is the only platform that it is tested on. It becomes an art relegated to this range and methodology, and anything that deviates from here is considered a violation of the rules of the art.

We see this in competition all the time. Wing Chun guy is able to best everyone in his class and won a street fight or two, enters a fighting competition based on his false abilities and gets **** handed to him. All because he was enabled by a system and teacher who failed him, making him believe what he was taught was applicable to such a contest.

All arts become refined over time based on several outside factors. Each art has a specific attribute that they excel at. Wing Chun is close range, its a specialty art developed for this range. It doesn't mean that it lacks attributes at medium and long range, but its not it's strong suit. Knowing this and knowing that a fight isn't fought in one range is a clue to what it is meant for. It requires supplementation just as Geezer said. That being said, if its not a stand alone method what is its purpose? Just a tool for infighting, or a method to help refine larger gross motor actions to function more effectively at closer range?


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> _*Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_



...and to further this discussion...

Is it being "used" wrong...or "trained" wrong?


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> because they are hobbyists, not fighters



Yep!!!


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> And my point is, most never get there. This isn't something taught from day one. Most people train to a certain point and stop. Some go on, but dwell too deep into hypothetical or abstract theory, believing this knowledge gives them advantage in a fight. Real fighting is about conditioning, realistic sparring and good, solid basics, not intermediate or advanced understanding of principles.
> 
> Herein lies the problem, just as Geezer pointed out, instead of focusing on actual realistic and applicable fighting methods, arts like Wing Chun, tend to focus on Chi Sau and drills because they are hobbyists, not fighters. Problem is, those hobbyists go on to teach fighting, at least to an extent. This methodology is evident in what is stressed, hence that is what is taught. Wing Chun from a Chi Sau perspective, because that is the only platform that it is tested on. It becomes an art relegated to this range and methodology, and anything that deviates from here is considered a violation of the rules of the art.
> 
> We see this in competition all the time. Wing Chun guy is able to best everyone in his class and won a street fight or two, enters a fighting competition based on his false abilities and gets **** handed to him. All because he was enabled by a system and teacher who failed him, making him believe what he was taught was applicable to such a contest.
> 
> All arts become refined over time based on several outside factors. Each art has a specific attribute that they excel at. Wing Chun is close range, its a specialty art developed for this range. It doesn't mean that it lacks attributes at medium and long range, but its not it's strong suit. Knowing this and knowing that a fight isn't fought in one range is a clue to what it is meant for. It requires supplementation just as Geezer said. That being said, if its not a stand alone method what is its purpose? Just a tool for infighting, or a method to help refine larger gross motor actions to function more effectively at closer range?


I agree, most people don't get there, but maybe it's at least in part because most people don't realize that is where they should be trying to go.  I think most people see their training as a collection of techniques.  I see it as something else, that is ultimately far more flexible and useful.  If people are able to have their eyes opened to what the training should be about, I think they can have a chance of getting there.  But there is a lot of bad instruction out there.

And honestly, I care less than nothing about competitions. Your example about some hypothetical guy successfully defending himself, but then losing in a competition, well honestly, so what?  The part that matters is that he defended himself.  His record in competition means nothing, in my opinion.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> I agree, most people don't get there, but maybe it's at least in part because most people don't realize that is where they should be trying to go.  I think most people see their training as a collection of techniques.  I see it as something else, that is ultimately far more flexible and useful.  If people are able to have their eyes opened to what the training should be about, I think they can have a chance of getting there.  But there is a lot of bad instruction out there.
> 
> And honestly, I care less than nothing about competitions. Your example about some hypothetical guy successfully defending himself, but then losing in a competition, well honestly, so what?  The part that matters is that he defended himself.  His record in competition means nothing, in my opinion.


No, I agree, successful self defense is far more important than competition. I was simply trying to illustrate the point about how many Wing Chun people believe the method to be nearly infallible, yet when put to the test in competition it doesn't fair well against other trained combatants. As an art, the theorectical makeup may support such a narrative but the training and application of most teaching doesn't. This, IMO, is why it fails and gets such a bad rap. Basically it boils down to delusioned braggerts and fanboys who have no clue of actual fighting misrepresenting an art.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Yes, I'm sure they have, but not to the level it is promoted to, or it being "recognizable" as Wing Chun that's  being used. There are predefined ideas as to what Wing Chun should look like in action based on the theory it promotes.



See this is a problem I think, the idea it should look a particular way.  I posted a video elsewhere of Jerry Devone in a fight where he knocked a guy out a couple times.  Was it Donnie Yen movie perfect?  Nope.  Could you see the Wing Chun in what he did though?  Yes.  Maybe this is just me but I have always looked at the way we train WC as being about teaching techniques to understand the principles with which you fight.  If my bil or bong isnt at a perfect angle but I adhere to the principles I am still using WC.  This may also come from the way Sifu Keith Mazza teaches (as he is the Sifu of my Sifu's).  At one seminar he took a picture perfect stance, and said "this is how we train but this isn't how anyone is going to fight irl.  The picture perfect man and wu sau are there to program you to know/protect your center and to stay relaxed vs tense with clenched fists.

I have always found it odd how WC is called a conceptual martial art, yet at the same time people expect it to have that picture perfect appearance. /shrug


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> No, I agree, successful self defense is far more important than competition. I was simply trying to illustrate the point about how many Wing Chun people believe the method to be nearly infallible, yet when put to the test in competition it doesn't fair well against other trained combatants. As an art, the theorectical makeup may support such a narrative but the training and application of most teaching doesn't. This, IMO, is why it fails and gets such a bad rap. Basically it boils down to delusioned braggerts and fanboys who have no clue of actual fighting misrepresenting an art.


Well, it does come down to the individual, and nothing and nobody is infallible.  But seriously, don't give that more weight than it actually merits.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?



yes and no.

But mostly yes.

Ok. A basic premis of fighting is that straight punches beat round punches. So if I am going to kick off a fight that has an element of ambush or verbal. Hitting the guy off the bat with three or four straight punches down the pipe works pretty well.

So lets go to the street. And someone comes towards you with a bit of the stink eye. And when he gets in range you drill him it works well.

But if the mechanics of the fight change at all and you hang on to that same mechanic you start to fight a loosing battle.

An extended toe to toe depends on cardio and your ability to be hit. If chun does not develop that. Or you just dont want to be involved in a meat grinder. As soon as your strikes stop becoming effective you need to GTFO. and start using a different method of striking.
Eg. a hockey fight.





Wing Chun doesn't and will stick to the center line and forward pressure while considering what they are doing will work against a more athletic harder guy.

If you are fighting at range. Straight boxing 1,2s have more juice behind them and more range.

So you try to enter with a shorter less powerful punch into a guy with a longer more powerful punch you better have some crafty foot work.

Ok. Crafty foot work. Honestly running straight at a guy doesn't count. You seed to bait people into overcommiting so you have time to enter and throw. Baiting people generally requires you to fight going backwards. And escape when things start to go south. this would mean a lot more moving off line and even god forbid some head movement.

This is without mentioning zero takedown defence. Zero ground work.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Anyways, I also agree on your second part, that as long as the principles are present so is the system, however, there has to be some semblance of technique that makes it identifiable as what it represents, otherwise, whats the sense in different systems that use relatively similar principles and theory. Style structure is also important in delivering the technique, its what hones the weapon.



Yes, here I agree with you.  A system is more than the concepts and theories.  It is also the biomechanics, or "engine."   Otherwise one would have to say that JKD and Wing Chun are the same system since they share so many concepts and theories.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> See this is a problem I think, the idea it should look a particular way.  I posted a video elsewhere of Jerry Devone in a fight where he knocked a guy out a couple times.  Was it Donnie Yen movie perfect?  Nope.  Could you see the Wing Chun in what he did though?  Yes.  Maybe this is just me but I have always looked at the way we train WC as being about teaching techniques to understand the principles with which you fight.  If my bil or bong isnt at a perfect angle but I adhere to the principles I am still using WC.  This may also come from the way Sifu Keith Mazza teaches (as he is the Sifu of my Sifu's).  At one seminar he took a picture perfect stance, and said "this is how we train but this isn't how anyone is going to fight irl.  The picture perfect man and wu sau are there to program you to know/protect your center and to stay relaxed vs tense with clenched fists.
> 
> I have always found it odd how WC is called a conceptual martial art, yet at the same time people expect it to have that picture perfect appearance. /shrug



Granted, nothing is going to look like "picture perfect" Wing Chun under stress.  But I still maintain that there is a problem if, during a bout, you can't tell which fighter is the  Wing Chun guy and which fighter is the kickboxer.  Why spend loads of time training a specific powerbase or biomechanic for sending and receiving force, and then totally abandon it when sparring or fighting?  Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Granted, nothing is going to look like "picture perfect" Wing Chun under stress.  But I still maintain that there is a problem if, during a bout, you can't tell which fighter is the  Wing Chun guy and which fighter is the kickboxer.  Why spend loads of time training a specific powerbase or biomechanic for sending and receiving force, and then totally abandon it when sparring or fighting?  Makes no sense to me.


How do you know it has been abandoned?

I agree that the power base and biomechanics should not be abandoned.  Developing those  things is the point of the training.  However, it can manifest in different ways, it can look different, and still be there.  You do not need a certain shape for those items to be in place.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> If you can use it in a fight it works and since there are probably millions of people who do wing chun and it's impossible to ask them all so who knowsknows



Kind of like smoking and cancer. If one guy doesnt get cancer. Can we really be sure there is a link.

I guess untill we test every single person who smokes we will never really know.






Smoking. Probably wont kill you. Definitely make you look cool.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> How do you know it has been abandoned?
> 
> I agree that the power base and biomechanics should not be abandoned.  Developing those  things is the point of the training.  However, it can manifest in different ways, it can look different, and still be there.  You do not need a certain shape for those items to be in place.



Different systems generate power in different ways.  The biomechanic used by Wing Chun to generate power is different from that used by Thai Boxing, and both are very recognizable.   If someone is fighting and claims to be doing Wing Chun, yet look just like a generic kickboxer, then they probably aren't using Wing Chun biomechanics.   They may be doing "Wing Chun-inspired" Kickboxing or Sanda, but they shouldn't be claiming they represent the Wing Chun system while doing so.


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> When I read comments like this I suspect that the author either has _limited experience in WC_, or has a _limited notion of what WC entails_. Not to be insulting, since you may be a very effective martial artist. But WC is much more than a "condiment", and if viewed that way will probably not function well. It is not a grab-bag of infighting tools to be bolted onto a generic, non-WC base


No, I am simply a realist. WC IS a grab bag, because as a complete system it just isn't effective for combat. I know that's blasphemy and all, but it's something I believe of all classical martial arts, not just WC.  They are all grab bags of various worth when it comes to mastering your own body.

Many want to become style. I find it's better to assimilate the style. The baby, without the bathwater.

Again, this is only as it pertains to combat. I love tma and cma especially, it's all very dear to my soul. But I'm a realist.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Granted, nothing is going to look like "picture perfect" Wing Chun under stress.  But I still maintain that there is a problem if, during a bout, you can't tell which fighter is the  Wing Chun guy and which fighter is the kickboxer.  Why spend loads of time training a specific powerbase or biomechanic for sending and receiving force, and then totally abandon it when sparring or fighting?  Makes no sense to me.



The problem is, in this context, "abandonment" becomes subjective.  I remember when I posted the "Jerry" video on a thread you started on the WC forum.  You noted how you could see the Wing Chun in it but there were other people who said they did not see WC on a thread in the general martial arts forum. 

It can be hard to tell, outside looking in, whether a principle has been abandoned or not because we are "feeling" the force received or produced.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Has nobody ever been able to defend themselves using their wing chun training?




you mean in the streets?





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=864271410401588


----------



## DanT

You practice:

Lap Da
Tan Da
Gan Da
Pak Da
Etc.

Yet when you spar, or fight, you try to box, even tho you don't know how to box. You practice those techniques, they work, you just suck at them.

The technique doesn't have to be completely changed to work. If you have to completely alter a technique to get it to work, you suck.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Different systems generate power in different ways.  The biomechanic used by Wing Chun to generate power is different from that used by Thai Boxing, and both are very recognizable.   If someone is fighting and claims to be doing Wing Chun, yet look just like a generic kickboxer, then they probably aren't using Wing Chun biomechanics.   They may be doing "Wing Chun-inspired" Kickboxing or Sanda, but they shouldn't be claiming they represent the Wing Chun system while doing so.


I guess I fundamentally disagree with this.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I fundamentally disagree with this.


As an example WC generates power like "old school" bare knuckle boxing.  Physics is physics.  Biomechanics are biomechanics.  There are only so many ways the human body can generate power.  One art may prioritize one method over the other but in the end there are a finite number of ways.  As Bruce Lee said... "..._unless there are human beings with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of human beings that are structurally different from us.."_


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> As an example WC generates power like "old school" bare knuckle boxing.  Physics is physics.  Biomechanics are biomechanics.  There are only so many ways the human body can generate power.  One art may prioritize one method over the other but in the end there are a finite number of ways.  As Bruce Lee said... "..._unless there are human beings with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of human beings that are structurally different from us.."_


Yeah, and there are some different ways to generate power, but the root of my disagreement is that someone needs to look a certain way when they fight, just because they train in a certain system.  I don't believe that at all.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> No, I am simply a realist. WC IS a grab bag, because as a complete system it just isn't effective for combat. I know that's blasphemy and all, but it's something I believe of all classical martial arts, not just WC.  They are all grab bags of various worth when it comes to mastering your own body.
> 
> Many want to become style. I find it's better to assimilate the style. The baby, without the bathwater.
> 
> Again, this is only as it pertains to combat. I love tma and cma especially, it's all very dear to my soul. But I'm a realist.



You take a long hard look at yourself find the things you can fix and fix them.

The longer you leave it the harder it gets.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> As an example WC generates power like "old school" bare knuckle boxing.  Physics is physics.  Biomechanics are biomechanics.  There are only so many ways the human body can generate power.  One art may prioritize one method over the other but in the end there are a finite number of ways.  As Bruce Lee said... "..._unless there are human beings with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of human beings that are structurally different from us.."_



Yeah. But you are trying to work a system. So your delivery system needs to take advantage of the way you generate power.

So the same person can have radically different methods.


----------



## anerlich

wckf92 said:


> ...and to further this discussion...
> 
> Is it being "used" wrong...or "trained" wrong?



Subjective. I would counsel both you and the OP to use "wrongly" or "incorrectly", instead of "wrong". Since we're all getting smug here and everything.


----------



## anerlich

The main reason why Wing Chun gets a bad rap from (some) MMA fanboys is because up until the UFC it was hyped (by some) as the deadliest fighting art on the planet and its senior practitioners as invincible. 

When this was shown to be incorrect, some thought and some still think quite a few deserved and still deserve to be force fed a diet of humble pie.


----------



## anerlich

Flying Crane said:


> But there is a lot of bad instruction out there.



Everyone in Wing Chun or other TCMAs thinks that 90% of the instruction out there is crap, but that they and their lineage belong to the other 10%.

You find a lot less of this in arts that compete regularly. Darwinism plays its part, and the incompetents and their instructors are quickly shown to be so. No one gets to sit on their laurels because their competitors are continually trying to improve, which pushes them on.

If your base of proof of competence is unrecorded "street fights", that doesn't apply. I suspect some people might even exaggerate or lie about such things ...


----------



## anerlich

Martial D said:


> WC IS a grab bag, because as a complete system it just isn't effective for combat. I know that's blasphemy and all



A grab bag might actually be better as it my cover more bases. I'm not sure a "complete system" can be a "grab bag".

You seem to be worried about blaspheming or insulting people or something. You'll have to try a lot harder if you want to be controversial or create offence. Don't give up, though, I see the beginnings of potential.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> Everyone in Wing Chun or other TCMAs thinks that 90% of the instruction out there is crap, but that they and their lineage belong to the other 10%.
> 
> You find a lot less of this in arts that compete regularly. Darwinism plays its part, and the incompetents and their instructors are quickly shown to be so. No one gets to sit on their laurels because their competitors are continually trying to improve, which pushes them on.


And this, ladies & gentlemen, brings us back to the thread that started this topic. A Wing Chun centric competition based on something other than Chi Sau. Jujutsu, Boxing, Muay Thai, Escrima, Chanbarra, Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Kendo etc. all have dedicated formats to test and guage their arts, they even have avenues to expand into more indepth events like MMA or Dog Brothers if they wish to.

Wing Chun only has Chi Sau competition, on rare occasions some Chunners enter Sanda or kickboxing, but this is far and few between and not a Wing Chun specific thing. I tend to agree with Geezer, if Wing Chun wants to stay away from Sanda & MMA, but still be recognized as a fighting art as touted by the senior generation (as anerlich stated), then a more realistic competative Wing Chun specific format is needed. It can only help the art grow.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> The problem is, in this context, "abandonment" becomes subjective.  I remember when I posted the "Jerry" video on a thread you started on the WC forum.  You noted how you could see the Wing Chun in it but there were other people who said they did not see WC on a thread in the general martial arts forum.
> 
> It can be hard to tell, outside looking in, whether a principle has been abandoned or not because we are "feeling" the force received or produced.



Not necessarily.  I could see the WC in what Jerry was doing, but I would have liked to have seen it even more.  Others that didn't see probably just aren't as familiar with WC (and particularly TWC) as they think they are.

Of the three versions of Wing Chun I have studied over the years, I have returned to my TWC training because I feel it is the version that is most usable in a sparring/fighting context.....IMHO, a fighter using it stands the best chance of actually being able to maintain it under pressure.  And I think that is because TWC typically trains to work from a little more distance than Ip Man WC.  It has been said to use a "larger frame" or to be a "long-arm" version of Wing Chun. 

And within TWC, I have gravitated towards Rick Spain's "reworking" of the forms because it seems even more applicable to "real fighting" to me.   And as LFJ would point out....if you are going to do an "application-based" method, then you better make sure your applications are truly "applicable"!


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I fundamentally disagree with this.



Back in the day, Bill Wallace made a big splash in the kickboxing world.  That was because he came in and did something totally different.  He didn't do his classical Karate training and he didn't do what was then "standard" kickboxing.  He trained hard to teach himself to fight off of the lead leg.  He seldom threw a kick from his rear leg.  He had the strength, balance, and flexibility to stand on his rear leg and use his lead leg like most people used the lead hand.  He could jab, hook, round kick, etc without ever putting his lead foot back on the ground.  He completely changed his biomechanics for kicking and generating power with the kick.  And he was very distinct and recognizable from everyone else in the ring.   He taught this to his student Don Wilson, who was also successful in kickboxing and very recognizable in the ring.

Now, would it have made sense for these gentlemen to spend all the long hours in the gym learning a new way to kick and generate power with the kick, and then abandon it in the ring and kickbox like everyone else?  Why would they spend all that time training and learning a specific biomechanical method and then abandon it under pressure?


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> As an example WC generates power like "old school" bare knuckle boxing.  Physics is physics.  Biomechanics are biomechanics.  There are only so many ways the human body can generate power.  One art may prioritize one method over the other but in the end there are a finite number of ways.  As Bruce Lee said... "..._unless there are human beings with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of human beings that are structurally different from us.."_



This is true.  But there is some latitude here.  Classical Karate generates power in the rear hand punch by pressing the rear heel into the ground, straightening the rear leg, torqueing the rear hip forward while maintaining a centered position, and throwing a punch directly from the shoulder with the fist horizontal and the elbow outward.   Classical boxing generates power in the rear hand punch by throwing directly from the shoulder with the fist horizontal and the elbow outward, but raises the rear heel while rotating through the lead foot to send body weight forward and essentially torque the whole upper body.  These are very different biomechanics when it comes to generating power.   Throwing a punch with the elbow down and coupled to the hip with the COG in the lower abdomen or pelvis is a different biomechanics than throwing a punch with the elbow flared out and swinging from the shoulder with the COG in the middle of the chest. 

In Wing Chun we train to do things in a certain way.  Why abandon that under pressure?   And if you (generic you, not you personally)find that you can't make what you are training work under pressure without altering it significantly, then you need to re-examine your training.  Either you aren't training hard enough, you aren't training properly, or you need to change what you are training.

I try to go by the old adage...."fight the way you train and train the way you fight."   Military combatives does this.  Western boxing does this.  Kickboxing does this.  MMA does this.  Why shouldn't Wing Chun?


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?



Rackemann has essentially taken his Wing Chun and grafted parts onto his western boxing.  Is he using Wing Chun to "refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill"??  Is this the way to "use Wing Chun properly"?











And if this is the way to "use Wing Chun properly", then why learn the entire Wing Chun system in the "classical" way from start to finish?  Can you just "cherry-pick" the parts that are going to help you refine your gross motor skills?


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> This is true.  But there is some latitude here.  Classical Karate generates power in the rear hand punch by pressing the rear heel into the ground, straightening the rear leg, torqueing the rear hip forward while maintaining a centered position, and throwing a punch directly from the shoulder with the fist horizontal and the elbow outward.   Classical boxing generates power in the rear hand punch by throwing directly from the shoulder with the fist horizontal and the elbow outward, but raises the rear heel while rotating through the lead foot to send body weight forward and essentially torque the whole upper body.  These are very different biomechanics when it comes to generating power.   Throwing a punch with the elbow down and coupled to the hip with the COG in the lower abdomen or pelvis is a different biomechanics than throwing a punch with the elbow flared out and swinging from the shoulder with the COG in the middle of the chest.
> 
> In Wing Chun we train to do things in a certain way.  Why abandon that under pressure?   And if you (generic you, not you personally)find that you can't make what you are training work under pressure without altering it significantly, then you need to re-examine your training.  Either you aren't training hard enough, you aren't training properly, or you need to change what you are training.
> 
> I try to go by the old adage...."fight the way you train and train the way you fight."   Military combatives does this.  Western boxing does this.  Kickboxing does this.  MMA does this.  Why shouldn't Wing Chun?


Again this brings about the question,what is YOUR Wing Chun's purpose? You stated yourself, that you found TWC to be the most realistic branch when it comes to use. I think everyone will agree, TWC is significantly altered from Yip Man WC, which is itself altered from its roots. Seems to me Wing Chun is flexible enough to be altered to suit the need and still be considered Wing Chun. Some branches, such as my own, believe WC to be an art based around someone grabbing you, not punching you. That it is more of a close quarter stand up grappling/hitting method, and as such our mechanics & tactics reflect that. For my branch it is mostly a method of refinement for that range based on those tactics & not boxing, my branch is based on the clinch. So it isn't an effective long range boxing method.

TWC and WSLVT are based on boxing and its alterations reflect that, so they're not effective grappling methods. Branches that dwell on Chi Sau mastery reflect that and generally lack realistic ability all around. It becomes counter productive to use your WC in a manner not consistent with how its trained or developed thinking it will work simply because there is some crossover in range or tactics.

People always state that Wing Chun is a conceptual art, this isn't  entirely true. Boxing & grappling are not bound by form, most branches of Wing Chun are. The 3 forms dictate how it should look, be positioned, move etc. People argue that the forms are just repositories of principle and theory, yet always reference the movements and patterns in them to justify their reasoning or stress their point. This isn't  conception, its form. San sik methods, like boxing & grappling, are less strict in theory and less rigid in movement, they are more conceptual because there is no pattern that dictates exactly how it should look and move.

Precision and refinement come through actual use in real time. This is also true to an extent in WC, but WC also stresses "proper" movement through repetition of form. While similar, the major difference lies in a loose platform (boxing, grappling) vs. a predefined platform (Chi Sau) used in Wing Chun to develop this refinement. Being bound by parameters and rules that state if you violate them you are no longer doing Wing Chun, is not conceptual.

So this brings about the question, is your Wing Chun strictly conceptual? If so, the forms aren't necessary, so why cling to them? They'll hinder more than help. Conception isn't bound by form, form is bound by form. This isn't to say that a degree of conception can't be or isn't found in form, it simply states that alteration is limited to the parameters set by form. For those that want it both ways, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's conception or form, there is no happy medium, pick one.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Rackemann has essentially taken his Wing Chun and grafted parts onto his western boxing.  Is he using Wing Chun to "refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill"??  Is this the way to "use Wing Chun properly"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if this is the way to "use Wing Chun properly", then why learn the entire Wing Chun system in the "classical" way from start to finish?  Can you just "cherry-pick" the parts that are going to help you refine your gross motor skills?


Why not cherry pick? You will never use the entire repertoire of a system, but you can use what is relevant to your needs. Isnt that exactly what MMA does?


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Wing Chun only has Chi Sau competition, on rare occasions some Chunners enter Sanda or kickboxing, but this is far and few between and not a Wing Chun specific thing. I tend to agree with Geezer, if Wing Chun wants to stay away from Sanda & MMA, but still be recognized as a fighting art as touted by the senior generation (as anerlich stated), then a more realistic competative Wing Chun specific format is needed. It can only help the art grow.



A "Wing Chun specific format" of competition is not a solution. Such a thing would be an admission that Wing Chun can't hack it against other styles in widely used combat sport rulesets.

One of my sidais became a WKA kickboxing world champion. Several others have had some success in MMA and kickboxing locally and at big shows in Asia. Alan Orr is the best known but hardly the only guy that has made WC work in combat Sports.

If you can't fight with your Wing Chun with gloves and adapt to rulesets, I'm not betting on you in a defense situation. Other WC people have done it.  No excuses.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Why not cherry pick? You will never use the entire repertoire of a system, but you can use what is relevant to your needs. Isnt that exactly what MMA does?



Cherry picking is not enough. You have to properly integrate the pieces you pick and train them like a separate martial art. I have decades of experience in both WC and BJJ, but training for MMA would be like learning and practicing a different third discipline all over again.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> A "Wing Chun specific format" of competition is not a solution. Such a thing would be an admission that Wing Chun can't hack it against other styles in widely used combat sport rulesets.
> 
> One of my sidais became a WKA kickboxing world champion. Several others have had some success in MMA and kickboxing locally and at big shows in Asia. Alan Orr is the best known but hardly the only guy that has made WC work in combat Sports.
> 
> If you can't fight with your Wing Chun with gloves and adapt to rulesets, I'm not betting on you in a defense situation. Other WC people have done it.  No excuses.


I'm  not outright disagreeing with you, but, jujutsu, muay thai, judo, boxing have their own specific formats outside of MMA. By your reasoning these art specific formats are an admission that they cannot hack it in a widely used combat sport ruleset. We know this to not be true, they got to where they are soecifically due to the fact that they were able to fully develop in such an environment.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> I'm  not outright disagreeing with you, but, jujutsu, muay thai, judo, boxing have their own specific formats outside of MMA. By your reasoning these art specific formats are an admission that they cannot hack it in a widely used combat sport ruleset. We know this to not be true, they got to where they are soecifically due to the fact that they were able to fully develop in such an environment.



You left out kickboxing, Kyokushin karate, wrestling and Sambo, among others. All those other formats preceded MMA. And athletes from those disciplines have succeeded in MMA. As have some WC people. Why not you? Why do you need your own custom ruleset? Unless it were more comprehensive than MMA? What do you suggest, and why would it help WC prove its veracity more than winning kickboxing or MMA matches? What's your ruleset and format that's going to to rock the WC world and show those MMA wannabes who's the boss?


----------



## KPM

* You stated yourself, that you found TWC to be the most realistic branch when it comes to use. I think everyone will agree, TWC is significantly altered from Yip Man WC, which is itself altered from its roots. Seems to me Wing Chun is flexible enough to be altered to suit the need and still be considered Wing Chun.*

---I absolutely agree!  My point of contention has been with people that train one way and then do something totally different when sparring or fighting.  Fight the way you train and train the way you fight!  So I would have no problem with someone saying they changed or updated their Wing Chun to match what they have found to work when sparring.   


*Some branches, such as my own, believe WC to be an art based around someone grabbing you, not punching you. That it is more of a close quarter stand up grappling/hitting method, and as such our mechanics & tactics reflect that. For my branch it is mostly a method of refinement for that range based on those tactics & not boxing, my branch is based on the clinch. So it isn't an effective long range boxing method.*

---Interesting!  I can see your "gross motor skill refinement" argument better.  It seems more applicable from that perspective than from a boxing range perspective.


*TWC and WSLVT are based on boxing and its alterations reflect that, so they're not effective grappling methods. Branches that dwell on Chi Sau mastery reflect that and generally lack realistic ability all around. It becomes counter productive to use your WC in a manner not consistent with how its trained or developed thinking it will work simply because there is some crossover in range or tactics.*

---Agreed.  Fight the way you train and train the way you fight!  ;-)

*People always state that Wing Chun is a conceptual art, this isn't  entirely true.*

----Again, I absolutely agree.  Wing Chun teaches concepts and principles, but it also teaches techniques and biomechanics.  It teaches a very specific way to move....to send and receive force.   JKD comes much closer to being a true "conceptual martial art."  Some JKD guys have a very FMA emphasis and some JKD guys have a kickboxing emphasis.  They move differently but use the same concepts and are both still JKD.


*For those that want it both ways, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's conception or form, there is no happy medium, pick one.*

---True.  I'd say it is form that is informed by and driven by solid concepts and principles.  But to me I don't think you can have Wing Chun without Wing Chun biomechanics or form.   If someone is just applying similar concepts and principles to boxing, can you call it Wing Chun?  In my opinion....no.  Maybe you call it "Wing Chun Boxing" like Rackemann does.   But it is still Boxing informed by Wing Chun, not classical Wing Chun.  To me....the biomechanics taught within Wing Chun ARE part of the conceptual basis.  Its just a physical concept rather than a mental concept.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> Cherry picking is not enough. You have to properly integrate the pieces you pick and train them like a separate martial art. I have decades of experience in both WC and BJJ, but training for MMA would be like learning and practicing a different third discipline all over again.


Counter intuitive to train your integration as something seperate when you're trying to make it cohesive.

Integration isn't as difficult as many make it out to be, especially when there are crossover methods that help identify where the integration needs to occur. I refuse to believe that one needs to attain a Masters degree  in several arts prior to understanding how a connects to b. All arts contain to some degree methods of kicking, punching, grabbing and throwing. Most MMA fighters I know have a background in one discipline, thats their strong suit, they supplement by developing their weaker areas, but not to the point that they achieve "black belt" status in them. Some I've trained had no background at all. I gave them basics in striking, throwing, grappling & kicking and they did just fine, especially when they settled on a method they liked. MMA isn't as convoluted or strict as many traditional arts, many find it actually easier to learn because it can be much more user friendly and less restrictive.


----------



## KPM

anerlich said:


> You left out kickboxing, Kyokushin karate, wrestling and Sambo, among others. All those other formats preceded MMA. And athletes from those disciplines have succeeded in MMA. As have some WC people. Why not you? Why do you need your own custom ruleset? Unless it were more comprehensive than MMA? What do you suggest, and why would it help WC prove its veracity more than winning kickboxing or MMA matches? What's your ruleset and format that's going to to rock the WC world and show those MMA wannabes who's the boss?



I agree.  I think SanDa type competitions should work fine for Wing Chun.


----------



## Martial D

anerlich said:


> A grab bag might actually be better as it my cover more bases. I'm not sure a "complete system" can be a "grab bag".
> 
> You seem to be worried about blaspheming or insulting people or something. You'll have to try a lot harder if you want to be controversial or create offence. Don't give up, though, I see the beginnings of potential.


No, I'm not worried, I've just been around here for enough revolutions to see the collective monocles fall into the Martini when this topic is broached.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> You left out kickboxing, Kyokushin karate, wrestling and Sambo, among others. All those other formats preceded MMA. And athletes from those disciplines have succeeded in MMA. As have some WC people. Why not you? Why do you need your own custom ruleset? Unless it were more comprehensive than MMA? What do you suggest, and why would it help WC prove its veracity more than winning kickboxing or MMA matches? What's your ruleset and format that's going to to rock the WC world and show those MMA wannabes who's the boss?


Wow, seems like your taking offense at me pointing out that all those arts have a dedicated platform outside of MMA that they are able to develop in. Simply pointing out Wing Chun doesn't  nor never had such a platform. Its had to try and adjust to other fighting styles rulesets. Yes, some have succeeded, but don't you think that if given the same opportunity to develop in a format designed around its ruleset that the art of Wing Chun would have the opportunity to grow productively? Your aggression towards me suggests I struck a nerve. Sorry wasn't my intention to get you worked up. Just pointing out your contradictory statements.


----------



## wingchun100

I like the idea of a non-Chi Sao-centric Wing Chun competition.

Wonder if we could get any investors? 

Then again, you would have people saying what they always say: "That shows how Wing Chun works against only Wing Chun."

My response: "So? Isn't that what Karate and Muay Thai tournaments do?"


----------



## anerlich

What's your ruleset? Spare me the amateur psychoanalysis.


----------



## anerlich

wingchun100 said:


> I like the idea of a non-Chi Sao-centric Wing Chun competition.
> 
> Wonder if we could get any investors?
> 
> Then again, you would have people saying what they always say: "That shows how Wing Chun works against only Wing Chun."
> 
> My response: "So? Isn't that what Karate and Muay Thai tournaments do?"



Nothing wrong with interclub tournaments. Karate cops a lot of the criticism WC does from the MMA crowd.

Some people seem to feel WC doesn't get respect from the public because of it's competitive failures. You have to beat those peop!e at their own game. If it matters to you.


----------



## wingchun100

Not to mention Western boxing, wrestling, judo...you get the idea.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Wow, seems like your taking offense at me pointing out that all those arts have a dedicated platform outside of MMA that they are able to develop in. Simply pointing out Wing Chun doesn't  nor never had such a platform. Its had to try and adjust to other fighting styles rulesets. Yes, some have succeeded, but don't you think that if given the same opportunity to develop in a format designed around its ruleset that the art of Wing Chun would have the opportunity to grow productively? Your aggression towards me suggests I struck a nerve. Sorry wasn't my intention to get you worked up. Just pointing out your contradictory statements.



Spare me the amateur psychoanalysis. What's your Wing Chun ruleset?


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Counter intuitive to train your integration as something seperate when you're trying to make it cohesive.
> 
> Integration isn't as difficult as many make it out to be, especially when there are crossover methods that help identify where the integration needs to occur. I refuse to believe that one needs to attain a Masters degree  in several arts prior to understanding how a connects to b. All arts contain to some degree methods of kicking, punching, grabbing and throwing. Most MMA fighters I know have a background in one discipline, thats their strong suit, they supplement by developing their weaker areas, but not to the point that they achieve "black belt" status in them. Some I've trained had no background at all. I gave them basics in striking, throwing, grappling & kicking and they did just fine, especially when they settled on a method they liked. MMA isn't as convoluted or strict as many traditional arts, many find it actually easier to learn because it can be much more user friendly and less restrictive.



So, if we take that at face value, you should have few problems getting your Wing Chun students to succeed under MMA ruless. So why a WC specific ruleset?


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> What's your ruleset? Spare me the amateur psychoanalysis.


Never said I had one. You obviously missed the point I made about, what is Wing Chun even used for? No one can even agree on that. Is it strickly a boxing method? Does it involve grappling? If so, stand up only or on the ground too? Is it a refinement method? If so, how could a competition be based on that? In short, it couldn't. 

Geezer is the one who brought up the competition thing, I agreed, added my two cents. The reason nothing outside of Chi Sau competition exsists is because of the great diversity in Yip Man to mainland to Malaysian Wing Chun systems. A form of Chi Sau is the only thing many have in common. A competition format, similar to that used by Karate, would, IMO do much to unify the community and lead to further advancement of the system. Since you don't use your Wing Chun in Kickboxing or MMA competition what do you care if some people want a dedicated Wing Chun competative format? Other arts like BJJ and Kyokushin have theirs, I fail to see the difference.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> So, you should have few problems getting your Wing Chun students to succeed under MMA rules. So why a WC specific ruleset?


I don't use or view Wing Chun like others do, so no, I've had no problems. My approach and view is similar to how Alan Orr utilizes it. 

Why are you so against Wing Chun having its own competition, yet are completely fine with Muay Thai, Jujutsu, Judo, Tae Kwon Do etc. having their own? MMA is a combination of several methods, its not one art specifically, and now days I don't know of any one art only individual competing.  Why should Wing Chun be a atand alone art in MMA? 

Doesn't make sense unless you're one of those " I think Wing Chun's got it all guys". I know your not because you train BJJ. That alone tells me you dont think Wing Chun is a stand alone method for MMA.

Some people don't want to train MMA. Does everyone that takes judo or boxing have to test their art for effectiveness in MMA competition?

I'm really failing to see what, if any, point your trying to make. Seems to me you just want to argue.


----------



## drop bear

anerlich said:


> A "Wing Chun specific format" of competition is not a solution. Such a thing would be an admission that Wing Chun can't hack it against other styles in widely used combat sport rulesets.
> 
> One of my sidais became a WKA kickboxing world champion. Several others have had some success in MMA and kickboxing locally and at big shows in Asia. Alan Orr is the best known but hardly the only guy that has made WC work in combat Sports.
> 
> If you can't fight with your Wing Chun with gloves and adapt to rulesets, I'm not betting on you in a defense situation. Other WC people have done it.  No excuses.



Yeah but they need a vehicle to attract fighters to wing chun. And so a specific rule set helps that out a bit.

Plenty of styles fight under a much more specific ruleset than MMA.


----------



## DanT

Wing Chun has, at its very core:

Jab
Cross
Backfist
Grab and Punch
Block and Punch
Front Kick
Side Kick
Round Kick
Hook Kick
Over 8 elbow techniques

So why can't WC ppl win in fights? Because they are hobbiests, not fighters. Let's say there are 1,000,000 WC ppl in the world. Maybe 1% of them train anywhere close to the 40 h a week a professional fighter trains?

So then we have 10,000 who actually train hard.

Of those 10,000 who actually train hard, maybe only 10% are interested in competition.

So now you have 1000 people who train hard and want to compete. Of those 1000 people, how many of them have access to competitions or will be good fighters? 

It all comes down to math, and the fact that most WC ppl are HOBBIESTS, not fighters.

Who are the people who go to a local Kwoon to take WC? It's most likely one of 3 ppl:

-the nerd
-the fat person who thinks you can be fat and be good
-the person doing it for health.

I've done WC since I was 13. I've seen MAYBE 15 good WC FIGHTERS in my life.

There's no magic in wing chun. If you train a lot you'll be good. If you train a little, you'll be at best okay. But don't confuse or lie to yourself.

What you do during your training is also important. Are you training with the mindset to slaughter your opponent or with the mindset of what you did during the day and thinking about food and other nonsense.

I see too often people doing loosey goosey Chi Sao and talking about things. 

Train like your life depends on it because maybe one day it will.


----------



## wingchun100

Nobody Important said:


> I don't use or view Wing Chun like others do, so no, I've had no problems. My approach and view is similar to how Alan Orr utilizes it.
> 
> Why are you so against Wing Chun having its own competition, yet are completely fine with Muay Thai, Jujutsu, Judo, Tae Kwon Do etc. having their own? MMA is a combination of several methods, its not one art specifically, and now days I don't know of any one art only individual competing.  Why should Wing Chun be a atand alone art in MMA?
> 
> Doesn't make sense unless you're one of those " I think Wing Chun's got it all guys". I know your not because you train BJJ. That alone tells me you dont think Wing Chun is a stand alone method for MMA.
> 
> Some people don't want to train MMA. Does everyone that takes judo or boxing have to test their art for effectiveness in MMA competition?
> 
> I'm really failing to see what, if any, point your trying to make. Seems to me you just want to argue.



I was thinking about that earlier. Has anyone who claims to practice just one style been an MMA competitor since the early days?

I literally haven't watched an MMA match since UFC 2, so I don't know.


----------



## geezer

DanT said:


> Train *like your life depends on it *because maybe one day it will.



For most people, _that's _not very likely. Unless you are a LEO, security professional, live/work in a really rotten area, etc. --otherwise you probably would be better off learning and practicing the_ non-physical_ basics of self defense: Awareness, Avoidance, De-escalation, and Escape. _If that isn't enough_, then learn and practice really basic physical self-defense, and (if you live around here) get firearms training and carry a gun.

Learning WC and training all the time just because you _might_ get jumped some day is not a very efficient way to go from a cost-benefit perspective. At least you should enjoy your time training. That's why people love chi-sau. And that's why I would like to see some WC competitions such as the small platform fighting I've suggested before.


----------



## geezer

OK, Andrew asked about the proposed rule-set for WC competition. Generally speaking _this: _

Fight on a small, round, raised platform, say three meters/yards in diameter, raised about 30cm/1ft. above the floor. Use light, open-palm UFC style gloves, allow punches, palms and elbows to all safe targets (no throat, eye, groin shots, etc.)  Same for kicks, and allow grappling, throws and takedowns. Win on points or KO/TKO. Also, fighting stops within say 5 - 8 seconds of going to the ground. If a submission can be achieved that quickly, it would also end the fight. And you loose if you step, fall, or are thrown off the platform onto the mat --unless both fighters go over the side. That's a reset.  Or perhaps better, even after getting tossed off the platform, you could _just lose points and reset._ We don't want it to end up being like a Sumo competition where driving the guy off the platform becomes the objective.

The idea is to have a challenging, novel format for testing close-range pugilism, and still allowing clinch-work, standing grappling, throws and takedowns and limited groundwork -- enough to demonstrate control over your opponent within the 5-8 second timeframe. Like all competition, the details would have to be worked out through trial and error.

To Andrew, I say that such a competition would offer excitement and testing of the attributes WC and related short-bridge systems train, and would be more appealing to Chunners than open competitions that demand skills they may not have trained (such as grappling). It's just like BJJ people that prefer to roll and compete in BJJ only events and not have to deal with heavy punches, kicks and "ground and pound" in an MMA competition. So, honestly, what's wrong with that???


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> Wing Chun has, at its very core:
> 
> Jab
> Cross
> Backfist
> Grab and Punch
> Block and Punch
> Front Kick
> Side Kick
> Round Kick
> Hook Kick
> Over 8 elbow techniques
> 
> So why can't WC ppl win in fights? Because they are hobbiests, not fighters. Let's say there are 1,000,000 WC ppl in the world. Maybe 1% of them train anywhere close to the 40 h a week a professional fighter trains?
> 
> So then we have 10,000 who actually train hard.
> 
> Of those 10,000 who actually train hard, maybe only 10% are interested in competition.
> 
> So now you have 1000 people who train hard and want to compete. Of those 1000 people, how many of them have access to competitions or will be good fighters?
> 
> It all comes down to math, and the fact that most WC ppl are HOBBIESTS, not fighters.
> 
> Who are the people who go to a local Kwoon to take WC? It's most likely one of 3 ppl:
> 
> -the nerd
> -the fat person who thinks you can be fat and be good
> -the person doing it for health.
> 
> I've done WC since I was 13. I've seen MAYBE 15 good WC FIGHTERS in my life.
> 
> There's no magic in wing chun. If you train a lot you'll be good. If you train a little, you'll be at best okay. But don't confuse or lie to yourself.
> 
> What you do during your training is also important. Are you training with the mindset to slaughter your opponent or with the mindset of what you did during the day and thinking about food and other nonsense.
> 
> I see too often people doing loosey goosey Chi Sao and talking about things.
> 
> Train like your life depends on it because maybe one day it will.



I don't think it's how much you train but simply how well you train.  I would bet on someone who trains 10 hours a week but does either full sparring or has to go "hands on" regularly as as an occupation before I would bet on the stereotypical chi sau/light sparring WCer who trains 40 hours a week.  I don't care what anyone says.  You can have all the muscle memory in the world when you are "relaxed" but it all goes out the window when fight or flight kicks in.

I also agree with @geezer in that a civilian should train on what I call the "soft power" aspects of self-defense.  Then I typically recommend studying the laws where you live, and if it permits, select an art that out of the gate teaches you not only empty hand self defense but also how to use "tools" or that the empty hand techniques transition to "tool" use.  I say the last because if you are attacked the person trying to rob/assault you is more than likely accustomed to real violence, a civilian is likely not.  As such whether it's using a tactical pen in a hammer strike or to support your fist with a punch (just as an example), can hopefully balance the scales a LITTLE bit.  Force multipliers should always be a consideration.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

anerlich said:


> A "Wing Chun specific format" of competition is not a solution. Such a thing would be an admission that Wing Chun can't hack it against other styles in widely used combat sport rulesets.
> 
> One of my sidais became a WKA kickboxing world champion. Several others have had some success in MMA and kickboxing locally and at big shows in Asia. Alan Orr is the best known but hardly the only guy that has made WC work in combat Sports.
> 
> If you can't fight with your Wing Chun with gloves and adapt to rulesets, I'm not betting on you in a defense situation. Other WC people have done it.  No excuses.


I think an art-specific format is a step. At present, many in WC don't even test what they do against others in WC. So, step one is more sparring for those who don't do any/much. The next step might competition or inter-school sparring between schools, and between lineages. This gives a lot of input to open competition. How does it help prepare for open competition? Someone with experience in another art will slip in a few techniques and approaches from that other art. If they are effective in WC competition, WC fighters will evolve to defend against them.


----------



## Yeung

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The advantage of YZKYM is both of your fists can have the same reach. But you can do that with "cross stance" - right leg forward with left hand forward.
> 
> I have always believed that the YZKYM has the following weakness:
> 
> - Both legs are too close and vulnerable for "double legs".
> - Heel pointing out and vulnerable for "foot sweep".
> - Inward bending knee joint is vulnerable for side kick.
> - Open your chest and belly for kick.
> - Prevent you from turning your body to have "maximum reach".
> - ...
> 
> So why train YZKYM if you don't use it in fighting?
> 
> The WC system was created in the south part of China. There were not many wrestlers there. The YZKYM is a good stance to maintain balance on boat. But on the dry land, that's different story.



Your observation is correct with people learned the forms in a short period of time without being corrected and tested, There are too many mistakes in the illustration you posted. One of the unique feature of the YZKYM is the prevention of a shin kick between the legs with both hands engaged, most practitioners of wrestling and pushing hands are vulnerable to it. And a proper YZKYM does not squeeze the thighs together as if trying to hold a ball between them. There is a difference between clamping a goat and clamping the testicles.


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> OK, Andrew asked about the proposed rule-set for WC competition. Generally speaking _this: _
> 
> Fight on a small, round, raised platform, say three meters/yards in diameter, raised about 30cm/1ft. above the floor. Use light, open-palm UFC style gloves, allow punches, palms and elbows to all safe targets (no throat, eye, groin shots, etc.)  Same for kicks, and allow grappling, throws and takedowns. Win on points or KO/TKO. Also, fighting stops within say 5 - 8 seconds of going to the ground. If a submission can be achieved that quickly, it would also end the fight. And you loose if you step, fall, or are thrown off the platform onto the mat --unless both fighters go over the side. That's a reset.  Or perhaps better, even after getting tossed off the platform, you could _just lose points and reset._ We don't want it to end up being like a Sumo competition where driving the guy off the platform becomes the objective.
> 
> The idea is to have a challenging, novel format for testing close-range pugilism, and still allowing clinch-work, standing grappling, throws and takedowns and limited groundwork -- enough to demonstrate control over your opponent within the 5-8 second timeframe. Like all competition, the details would have to be worked out through trial and error.
> 
> To Andrew, I say that such a competition would offer excitement and testing of the attributes WC and related short-bridge systems train, and would be more appealing to Chunners than open competitions that demand skills they may not have trained (such as grappling). It's just like BJJ people that prefer to roll and compete in BJJ only events and not have to deal with heavy punches, kicks and "ground and pound" in an MMA competition. So, honestly, what's wrong with that???



This would also force some Chunners to get going on the physical exercise! You need some cardio in there to last.


----------



## wingchun100

Seriously...does anyone have the ability to start organizing this thing???


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think an art-specific format is a step. At present, many in WC don't even test what they do against others in WC. So, step one is more sparring for those who don't do any/much. The next step might competition or inter-school sparring between schools, and between lineages. This gives a lot of input to open competition. How does it help prepare for open competition? Someone with experience in another art will slip in a few techniques and approaches from that other art. If they are effective in WC competition, WC fighters will evolve to defend against them.


Yeah I would call it "baby steps".  If you just threw someone into a fight with say a good Akidoka that trained with a resisting uke the chunner would end up on their back.  A TKD guy that competes, a foot to the face.  Need to start inside.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> We don't want it to end up being like a Sumo competition where driving the guy off the platform becomes the objective.



But can we at least adopt the Sumo uniform?


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> Yeah I would call it "baby steps".  If you just threw someone into a fight with say a good Akidoka that trained with a resisting uke the chunner would end up on their back.  A TKD guy that competes, a foot to the face.  Need to start inside.


You think? I've never seen an aikido throw work against even an untrained resisting opponent, much less a trained martial artist. Not saying it's impossible, only that in roughly 25 years of training and competition I've never seen it happen.


----------



## geezer

wingchun100 said:


> Seriously...does anyone have the ability to start organizing this thing???



Honestly, I don't, but I have some ideas on how to get started. First experiment with the format in-school. Maybe just tape or chalk the fighting area on the floor. Play with the rules and see what works. Then step it up and build a platform. You could start with a simple square made of two 4' x 8' pieces of plywood attached together and set on top of cinder blocks, etc. on top of a mat (a tarp would protect the mat just fine). See how it goes.

Based on my experience with crazy young students_, If you build it, they will come._ Novelty is irresistible!

...in fact back in the 80's I built a bed of nails for a breaking demo using the tools in the sculpture shop at the university I attended. I'd barely finished it, when a group of punk-rocker art students came by and were begging me for a chance to try it out! One guy actually laid down on it before I could stop him. It was very uncomfortable, but he didn't care much! Later I did work out the technique of lying on it safely and had some pavers busted on my chest for an article in the old Inside Kung-fu Magazine.


----------



## Martial D

Nobody Important said:


> what is Wing Chun even used for? No one can even agree on that. Is it strickly a boxing method? Does it involve grappling? If so, stand up only or on the ground too? Is it a refinement method?


When my feet are on the ground and I am close enough to you to smell what you had for breakfast, WC is boss. For other situations, I prefer different solutions.


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> So why can't WC ppl win in fights? Because they are hobbiests, not fighters. Let's say there are 1,000,000 WC ppl in the world. Maybe 1% of them train anywhere close to the 40 h a week a professional fighter trains?
> 
> .


 
While I agree with your sentiment Dan, I think you might have exaggerated things a bit.  Your numbers might apply to a Wing Chun guy trying to make it in a venue like the UFC.   But there are plenty of "amateur" venues where any of the larger Wing Chun schools through-out the world should have people that could be competing. If Wing Chun is a boxing method, as so many people are fond of saying, then why wouldn't Sanda rules work for Wing Chun?  Sanda-style competitions are becoming more and more common.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking about that earlier. Has anyone who claims to practice just one style been an MMA competitor since the early days?
> 
> I literally haven't watched an MMA match since UFC 2, so I don't know.



There are plenty of people competing in MMA that come to it without any prior martial arts background.  They sign up and train in an MMA gym and basically learn MMA as its own "style."  Now this "style" may be a mix of kickboxing, wrestling, and no-Gi BJJ, but it has become a thing all of itself.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> OK, Andrew asked about the proposed rule-set for WC competition. Generally speaking _this: _
> 
> Fight on a small, round, raised platform, say three meters/yards in diameter, raised about 30cm/1ft. above the floor. Use light, open-palm UFC style gloves, allow punches, palms and elbows to all safe targets (no throat, eye, groin shots, etc.)  Same for kicks, and allow grappling, throws and takedowns. Win on points or KO/TKO. Also, fighting stops within say 5 - 8 seconds of going to the ground. If a submission can be achieved that quickly, it would also end the fight. And you loose if you step, fall, or are thrown off the platform onto the mat --unless both fighters go over the side. That's a reset.  Or perhaps better, even after getting tossed off the platform, you could _just lose points and reset._ We don't want it to end up being like a Sumo competition where driving the guy off the platform becomes the objective.



Except for the limited size of your platform, that is essentially Sanda rules.  Why reinvent the wheel?

San Shou Rules


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Later I did work out the technique of lying on it safely and had some pavers busted on my chest for an article in the old Inside Kung-fu Magazine.



I remember that article!  Didn't you also do the old "iron body thing" where you laid stretched out between two folding chairs with your head on one and your feet on the other?


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I remember that article!  Didn't you also do the old "iron body thing" where you laid stretched out between two folding chairs with your head on one and your feet on the other?



Yep. And bending the re-bar rods pointed against my neck. I even did the iron-palm thing where you stack several bricks or pavers (with or without spacers) and then have a volunteer pick which one you will break when you strike the stack. People are most impressed when you break only the middle one out of three, for example.

For the record, I figured out how to do it, but was never very consistent or a very good performer. So there went my dreams of being the _Amazing Randi _of the martial arts.

...maybe if I had an actual background in performing magic tricks I would have done better? Anyway, it was fun at the time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> There are plenty of people competing in MMA that come to it without any prior martial arts background.  They sign up and train in an MMA gym and basically learn MMA as its own "style."  Now this "style" may be a mix of kickboxing, wrestling, and no-Gi BJJ, but it has become a thing all of itself.


Fighting can be as simple as to develop a set of:

1. finish strategy first.
2. entering strategy afterward.

For example, your finish strategy can be your "cross". You then use your jab along with your footwork to set up your cross.

If we all follow this development pattern - define goal first, find a path to reach to that goal afterward, there will be no difference between TMA and MMA.

Unfortunately, most TMA training may reverse the order of "goal first, path later".


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> You think? I've never seen an aikido throw work against even an untrained resisting opponent, much less a trained martial artist. Not saying it's impossible, only that in roughly 25 years of training and competition I've never seen it happen.



I have. But they were not Aikido guys doing it. Which relates to this competition idea.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Except for the limited size of your platform, that is essentially Sanda rules.  Why reinvent the wheel?
> 
> San Shou Rules



Because there has to be a reason why a person who wants to use wing chun does wing chun.

Otherwise you get all your talent and resources sucked away into other styles.

People ask why arts like wing chun can't compete against arts like MMA and never consider. The best martial artists. And the most money.

If a wing chun guy could demolish all the MMA guys in the world. He would be a MMAer. Why the hell would he still do wing chun?


----------



## Flying Crane

anerlich said:


> Everyone in Wing Chun or other TCMAs thinks that 90% of the instruction out there is crap, but that they and their lineage belong to the other 10%.
> 
> You find a lot less of this in arts that compete regularly. Darwinism plays its part, and the incompetents and their instructors are quickly shown to be so. No one gets to sit on their laurels because their competitors are continually trying to improve, which pushes them on.
> 
> If your base of proof of competence is unrecorded "street fights", that doesn't apply. I suspect some people might even exaggerate or lie about such things ...


And yet there is still a lot of bad instruction going on out there.

If you like to compete, by alll means, go for it.

I don't find it necessary.  But that's my opinion.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> And yet there is still a lot of bad instruction going on out there.
> 
> If you like to compete, by alll means, go for it.
> 
> I don't find it necessary.  But that's my opinion.



The point is you can tell a lot more easily if they compete.





So somebody kind of should somewhere before you move conceptually into crazy town.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> You think? I've never seen an aikido throw work against even an untrained resisting opponent, much less a trained martial artist. Not saying it's impossible, only that in roughly 25 years of training and competition I've never seen it happen.



That's because all Aikido isn't created equal.  @gpseymour can attest to this.  You have the Aikido that was more about spiritual cultivation, which Ueshiba Sensei taught at the end of his life and then you have sub Lineages like Yoshinkan Aikido, which is MUCH closer to the Date Aiki-Jujutsu roots, the practictioners of which are sometimes called "evil-doers" half jokingly but the rest of the community.  This is a product of the fact the founder was a pre-WWII student of O'Sensei and when he was given permission to start his own teaching after the war used his war time experience. We actually would enter with strikes then go for the takedowns and it is, eventually, against resisting opponents al la Judo and BJJ etc.  Then you have hybrids like NGA.

The problem is Yoshinkan Aikido Dojos are no where near as common.

P.S. I said "eventually" because at my school at least, the Sensei was obsessive about making sure you knew how to fall first before you started going into "resisting" training to avoid injury.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> P.S. I said "eventually" because at my school at least, the Sensei was obsessive about making sure you knew how to fall first before you started going into "resisting" training to avoid injury.


"Eventually" is true for my students, as well. I don't get a lot of young folks with a desire for hard fighting and an ability to regrow lost limbs (at least, I'm pretty sure I could do that at 29). I mostly get middle-aged folks (at 47, I have had only 2 students younger than me) who have to be much more careful about getting injured.


----------



## Flying Crane

Martial D said:


> You think? I've never seen an aikido throw work against even an untrained resisting opponent, much less a trained martial artist. Not saying it's impossible, only that in roughly 25 years of training and competition I've never seen it happen.


It does beg the question, how much aikido, and under what conditions, have you seen it done?

I've been training for well over 30 years, and there is a whole lot that I haven't seen because, well, I wasn't there to see it.

I could make all manner of obnoxious claims in an attempt to cast different systems in a bad light, such as: in all my years, I've never seen someone successfully use BJJ to defend himself from an assailant.  Or...I've never seen a Muay Thai round kick used successfully on an assailant in the street.  I could go on and on with such statements.  I don't because, well, there is a whole lot that goes on in the world that I wasn't there to see.  So I don't make such statements.

Just because you weren't there to see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> It does beg the question, how much aikido, and under what conditions, have you seen it done?
> 
> I've been training for well over 30 years, and there is a whole lot that I haven't seen because, well, I wasn't there to see it.
> 
> I could make all manner of obnoxious claims in an attempt to cast different systems in a bad light, such as: in all my years, I've never seen someone successfully use BJJ to defend himself from an assailant.  Or...I've never seen a Muay Thai round kick used successfully on an assailant in the street.  I could go on and on with such statements.  I don't because, well, there is a whole lot that goes on in the world that I wasn't there to see.  So I don't make such statements.
> 
> Just because you weren't there to see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Except for the limited size of your platform, that is essentially Sanda rules.  Why reinvent the wheel?
> 
> San Shou Rules



I like to drive my own set of wheels! 

So maybe you call it _WC Sanda_ --or s_mall platform sanda_? If its a WC thing, maybe more WC people will participate? One can only hope!


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> It does beg the question, how much aikido, and under what conditions, have you seen it done?
> 
> I've been training for well over 30 years, and there is a whole lot that I haven't seen because, well, I wasn't there to see it.
> 
> I could make all manner of obnoxious claims in an attempt to cast different systems in a bad light, such as: in all my years, I've never seen someone successfully use BJJ to defend himself from an assailant.  Or...I've never seen a Muay Thai round kick used successfully on an assailant in the street.  I could go on and on with such statements.  I don't because, well, there is a whole lot that goes on in the world that I wasn't there to see.  So I don't make such statements.
> 
> Just because you weren't there to see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



Dropbear nailed it. And honestly if you made either of those counterclaims, I would have trouble believing you, as there is hours of footage available of both of those things. 

Here's the thing, we live in a magical age where almost every single person carries a video camera in their pockets. I do wonder if these Aikido men have been borrowing from ninjitsu in the art of staying totally hidden.

I've personally sparred with more than a few aikido guys over the years. Their aikido always seems to turn into sloppy kickboxing when it's go time for some reason or other. Your milage may vary.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


>



I think there is a difference here because here we are talking about anecdotal experience, not an assertion inserted into something that is based on empirically proven science.  That said, while it's just sparring, and just TMA vs TMA.


----------



## wingchun100

Juany118 said:


> I think there is a difference here because here we are talking about anecdotal experience, not an assertion inserted into something that is based on empirically proven science.  That said, while it's just sparring, and just TMA vs TMA.



Pretty good, but I have some background information on this: the TKD guy had a cold that day. Plus he didn't get much sleep the night before. Plus he has a job as a beer truck driver delivery guy, which is all driver unload, so he was really sore.


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> I like to drive my own set of wheels!
> 
> So maybe you call it _WC Sanda_ --or s_mall platform sanda_? If its a WC thing, maybe more WC people will participate? One can only hope!



For a moment I seriously thought about reaching out to the local WC people and organizing this...but then I realized what their response would be.

"Wing Chun is for life or death street defense...not ego-boosting tournaments."

Maybe someone else will be able to take this idea and run with it.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Dropbear nailed it. And honestly if you made either of those counterclaims, I would have trouble believing you, as there is hours of footage available of both of those things.
> 
> Here's the thing, we live in a magical age where almost every single person carries a video camera in their pockets. I do wonder if these Aikido men have been borrowing from ninjitsu in the art of staying totally hidden.
> 
> I've personally sparred with more than a few aikido guys over the years. Their aikido always seems to turn into sloppy kickboxing when it's go time for some reason or other. Your milage may vary.



The videos exist, sorta.  The problem is this.  As I noted their is the Aikido that most people know in the West, then the far less seen Aikido of Yoshinkan, NGA etc.  The reason is two fold.  First O'Sensei, for whatever reason, turned to Spiritual cultivation and the majority of the schools in the West follow his final teachings.  Second, people see that mkre common demonstration and say "let's study BJJ."  There market forces trigger.  So while in Japan Yoshinkan and Tenshin Dojo Aikido are more common than in the West (NGA not sure), the West tends to not notice there is Aikido that actually "works". 

I still remember the first time I sparred school v school with a "typical" Aikido school.  The students of the other school were pissed.  We did strikes as we entered.  Our throws were tighter and straight to the ground vs the wider throws they did.  We didn't "submit" to a throw until injury was imminent, they went with throw as soon as it started, but what I studied was still Aikido it was simply the Aikido of an "evil Aikidoka".


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> For a moment I seriously thought about reaching out to the local WC people and organizing this...but then I realized what their response would be.
> 
> "Wing Chun is for life or death street defense...not ego-boosting tournaments."
> 
> Maybe someone else will be able to take this idea and run with it.


And here in lies the problem.  You can't actually prepare for life or death street defense without pressure testing but since real pressure testing tends to scare away $$$$ paying students they don't pressure test and need an excuse for it.  That's what happens when Martial arts become about business and not fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> I like to drive my own set of wheels!
> 
> So maybe you call it _WC Sanda_ --or s_mall platform sanda_? If its a WC thing, maybe more WC people will participate? One can only hope!


The ASCSA had tried that approach. We tried to be different from Sanda and we called our tournament "combat SC". The only difference is we don't have the 3 second holding rule. But since we can't attract Sanda fighters, later on we had to merged with Sanda/Sanshou.

IMO, if you don't want to isolate yourself from others, it's better to merge with others than to start something new.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Pretty good, but I have some background information on this: the TKD guy had a cold that day. Plus he didn't get much sleep the night before. Plus he has a job as a beer truck driver delivery guy, which is all driver unload, so he was really sore.


The Aikidoka did a decent job entering to get out of the power zone for those TKD kicks - he needs some close-in tools once he gets there, though. I'd be interested in seeing if his guard improves if he faces someone who throws more punches.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, if you don't want to isolate yourself from others, it's *better to merge with others* than to start something new.



The WC community is _already_ totally isolated, not only from others, but from each other. Most rarely spar among themselves and seldom if ever with other styles. In fact, years back, when our association split, members of the other faction were forbidden from engaging with us (as well as with other WC lineages). My old si-hing and training partner of many many years wouldn't even talk to me! 

With attitudes like _that_, merging with others is not a possibility at this point. I'd just like to get together with a few local groups and build up some trust. Hard to do in a style where everybody believes that they have the only true lineage, and can't work with anybody else because to lose means totally losing face.

My attitude is to do chi sau and let maybe let people punch me a few times first just to show them that I'm not there to be a jerk. Then when we get serious, it's not about who wins, but about what we can learn from each other. In competitive arts everybody gets hit, or loses from time to time. That's what makes it competition, right? Only when things are bogus to begin with,is "losing" such a problem for people.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> is "losing" such a problem for people.


Yes! it is.

If you (general YOU) have

- won 3 years national champ in your field, you may not want to compete for your 4th year. You may just want to retire with your 3 years national champ title.
- not won any national title, to lose one more time doesn't mean anything.

My teacher retired when he had just one "tie" in his tournament career. That was how seriously some people may think about "competition".



geezer said:


> My attitude is to do chi sau and let maybe let people punch me a few times first just to show them that I'm not there to be a jerk.


Your opponent needs to earn that himself. You should not give him for free.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yes! it is.
> 
> If you (general YOU) have
> 
> - won 3 years national champ in your field, you may not want to compete for your 4th year. You may just want to retire with your 3 years national champ title.
> - not won any national title, to lose one more time doesn't mean anything.
> 
> My teacher retired when he had just one "tie" in his tournament career. That was how seriously some people may think about "competition".



I think it's a very different thing when you are talking about a professional, that is, a champion like you are talking about, and people who are _still at the learning stage_. You wouldn't tell _a student _to avoid competition for fear that he might lose sometimes. How else would he get experience?

Besides, you are talking about an art that has a history of legitimate competition. Nothing like that currently exists in Wing Chun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> My attitude is to do chi sau and let maybe let people punch me a few times first just to show them that I'm not there to be a jerk.


The unwritten rule in wrestling is after you have taken down your opponent twice in a role, you will let your opponent to take you down once and end that match so he will not lose too much face.


----------



## obi_juan_salami




----------



## Flying Crane

Martial D said:


> Dropbear nailed it. And honestly if you made either of those counterclaims, I would have trouble believing you, as there is hours of footage available of both of those things.
> 
> Here's the thing, we live in a magical age where almost every single person carries a video camera in their pockets. I do wonder if these Aikido men have been borrowing from ninjitsu in the art of staying totally hidden.
> 
> I've personally sparred with more than a few aikido guys over the years. Their aikido always seems to turn into sloppy kickboxing when it's go time for some reason or other. Your milage may vary.


Ah, well.  I don't read drop bears posts.  I have no interest in what he might have to say.  About anything.  Ever.  So...ok then. 

I guess if you believe that everything in the world is captured on film and posted on YouTube for you to gawk at, well...again...ok then.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> I'm really failing to see what, if any, point your trying to make. Seems to me you just want to argue.



You do indeed seem to be failing there. I enjoy the occasional argument. Sue me.



drop bear said:


> Yeah but they need a vehicle to attract fighters to wing chun. And so a specific rule set helps that out a bit.
> 
> Plenty of styles fight under a much more specific ruleset than MMA.



I was viewing the "problem" as WC not getting respect from sportfighters because, with some exceptions, it did not fare well in those arenas.

I hadn't considered the possibility that people from outside WC might want to get in on the act with this new format and compare styles. The ability to compare and compete outside WC-only competitors is essential in my view to solve what I understood the problem to be. If the new format allows that, I guess it might fly.



geezer said:


> OK, Andrew asked about the proposed rule-set for WC competition. Generally speaking _this: _
> 
> Fight on a small, round, raised platform, say three meters/yards in diameter, raised about 30cm/1ft. above the floor. Use light, open-palm UFC style gloves, allow punches, palms and elbows to all safe targets (no throat, eye, groin shots, etc.)  Same for kicks, and allow grappling, throws and takedowns. Win on points or KO/TKO. Also, fighting stops within say 5 - 8 seconds of going to the ground. If a submission can be achieved that quickly, it would also end the fight. And you loose if you step, fall, or are thrown off the platform onto the mat --unless both fighters go over the side. That's a reset.  Or perhaps better, even after getting tossed off the platform, you could _just lose points and reset._ We don't want it to end up being like a Sumo competition where driving the guy off the platform becomes the objective.
> 
> The idea is to have a challenging, novel format for testing close-range pugilism, and still allowing clinch-work, standing grappling, throws and takedowns and limited groundwork -- enough to demonstrate control over your opponent within the 5-8 second timeframe. Like all competition, the details would have to be worked out through trial and error.
> 
> To Andrew, I say that such a competition would offer excitement and testing of the attributes WC and related short-bridge systems train, and would be more appealing to Chunners than open competitions that demand skills they may not have trained (such as grappling). It's just like BJJ people that prefer to roll and compete in BJJ only events and not have to deal with heavy punches, kicks and "ground and pound" in an MMA competition. So, honestly, what's wrong with that???



As I say above, I was approaching this from a different angle, that of proving WC to sportfighters outside WC.

Most combat sports have boundaries. A platform seems a bit extreme and injury-prone when the same thing could be achieved with a visible boundary on a flat combat area - which should be padded if there are to be throws.


----------



## anerlich

DanT said:


> So why can't WC ppl win in fights? Because they are hobbiests, not fighters. Let's say there are 1,000,000 WC ppl in the world. Maybe 1% of them train anywhere close to the 40 h a week a professional fighter trains?
> 
> So then we have 10,000 who actually train hard.
> 
> Of those 10,000 who actually train hard, maybe only 10% are interested in competition.
> 
> So now you have 1000 people who train hard and want to compete. Of those 1000 people, how many of them have access to competitions or will be good fighters?
> 
> It all comes down to math, and the fact that most WC ppl are HOBBIESTS, not fighters.



Too many seem to think that no one fights or trains MMA outside of the UFC and other elite shows, and that everyone that trains MMA or has an MMA fight is a full time professional fighter.

I train at an MMA gym in Sydney. I know a One FC title holder and another guy with multiple national level belts. Both work full time at jobs outside martial arts.



DanT said:


> Who are the people who go to a local Kwoon to take WC? It's most likely one of 3 ppl:
> 
> -the nerd
> -the fat person who thinks you can be fat and be good
> -the person doing it for health.



Harsh.

I think it was Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan who were talking about the "killer nerds" (something like that) who train jiu jitsu. Nothing wrong with being intelligent. Is there?


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> Ah, well.  I don't read drop bears posts.  I have no interest in what he might have to say.  About anything.  Ever.  So...ok then.
> 
> I guess if you believe that everything in the world is captured on film and posted on YouTube for you to gawk at, well...again...ok then.



Yet, it pretty much is. Since you have DB on ignore(he is one of my fav posters here, go figure), he posted a video of 'russels teapot'. Are you familiar with that particular thought experiment?

It's certainly relevant here.


----------



## anerlich

How does this relate to the discussion? Since some of us are accusing each other of missing points:



obi_juan_salami said:


>


----------



## anerlich

wingchun100 said:


> "Wing Chun is for life or death street defense...not ego-boosting tournaments."



In my experience tournaments tend to flatten the ego, not boost it. And often your competitors become good friends, or at least, people you respect.


----------



## dudewingchun

anerlich said:


> In my experience tournaments tend to flatten the ego, not boost it. And often your competitors become good friends, or at least, people you respect.



I agree and you don't see MMA guys calling themselves grandmasters ( when they aren't, and haven't even fought once) wearing traditional Chinese Sifu clothes acting like they are better than normal people. The sport fighting=big ego argument is bs. I reckon a lot TMA/Kung Fu guys have even more ego problems than typical MMA guys which is why a lot of Kung Fu guys don't want to compete...to save face in case they lose!


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Yet, it pretty much is. Since you have DB on ignore(he is one of my fav posters here, go figure), he posted a video of 'russels teapot'. Are you familiar with that particular thought experiment?
> 
> 
> It's certainly relevant here.



Your assertion is that because you have never seen Aikido work, it does not work.  It is very easy to hide behind Russels teapot as “I don’t have to prove I’m right, because the burden of proof does not lie with the denier”.

The flip side though is that you are asking us to believe that in all the time Aikido has existed and of all the millions of people that have trained in it, not one has ever successfully been able to use Aikido.  I cannot believe that is the case.


Nor can I believe that the The Senshusei Course, which was originally created to train Tokyo Riot Police, would have been done so  if the art did not work. No Police organisation would  ask it’s members to train 7 hours a day five day a week for 11 months (or however long it is) for an art which has no merit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> The WC community is _already_ totally isolated, not only from others, but from each other. Most rarely spar among themselves and seldom if ever with other styles. In fact, years back, when our association split, members of the other faction were forbidden from engaging with us (as well as with other WC lineages). My old si-hing and training partner of many many years wouldn't even talk to me!
> 
> With attitudes like _that_, merging with others is not a possibility at this point. I'd just like to get together with a few local groups and build up some trust. Hard to do in a style where everybody believes that they have the only true lineage, and can't work with anybody else because to lose means totally losing face.
> 
> My attitude is to do chi sau and let maybe let people punch me a few times first just to show them that I'm not there to be a jerk. Then when we get serious, it's not about who wins, but about what we can learn from each other. In competitive arts everybody gets hit, or loses from time to time. That's what makes it competition, right? Only when things are bogus to begin with,is "losing" such a problem for people.


I've seen enough of that kind of acrimony during splits to last me a lifetime, Geezer. I'm not part of the WC community, but I wish I had a way to help get something like this started.


----------



## wckf92

Juany118 said:


>



Holy...crap. 
That dude should take that (black?) belt off and choke himself with it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Yet, it pretty much is. Since you have DB on ignore(he is one of my fav posters here, go figure), he posted a video of 'russels teapot'. Are you familiar with that particular thought experiment?
> 
> It's certainly relevant here.


Actually, there's a ton of stuff not captured on video. Don't let the amount of video that exists fool you. As far as I know, about 5 minutes of my entire training and teaching time has made it to video. The cops I know have only had a tiny fraction of what they do show up on video (body cams capture what's around them, not what they do). The bouncers I've known, there was video of some of what they did (from security cameras), but it only survived until those videos were overwritten.

We see a lot of videos of fights, and some of attacks, but in the US attacks rarely happen where there are cameras. In some countries (and in some areas of some cities in the US), there are more mounted cameras to capture some of that. Since many attacks don't happen around witnesses, those don't make it onto a smartphone. What makes it on phones, for the most part, is where someone was being obnoxious enough that people decided to start videoing before the action started.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Holy...crap.
> That dude should take that (black?) belt off and choke himself with it.


I didn't see to much wrong with the exception that he clearly has fallen into the trap a lot of TKD people do, rely on kicks WAY to much.  As @gpseymour said earlier, I would be interested to see how the Aikidoka would fair against someone who punched more.

One other reason I shared the video.  I don't know what school of Aikido the Aikidoka is from BUT Aikido is not just about wide looping throws.  It's heart is Daito Aiki-jujutsu, that means takedowns and locks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I didn't see to much wrong with the exception that he clearly has fallen into the trap a lot of TKD people do, rely on kicks WAY to much.  As @gpseymour said earlier, I would be interested to see how the Aikidoka would fair against someone who punched more.
> 
> One other reason I shared the video.  I don't know what school of Aikido the Aikidoka is from BUT Aikido is not just about wide looping throws.  It's heart is Daito Aiki-jujutsu, that means takedowns and locks.


This is partly OT, but bear with me - I have a point that pertains to WC, I think. (Or I'm just rambling. Always a possibility.)

One of the issues I see with that Aikidoka's responses is that I don't see the "jujutsu" (as Kondo Katsuyuki would refer to it) from Daito-ryu - something I don't see trained in most of mainline Aikido (I expect it shows up more in Yoshinkan, possibly in Shotokan/Tomiki). I see him trying to apply the "aiki-jujutsu", which happens at a fairly specific timing. When he misses that timing, he just keeps dragging into the same technique. With just a couple of close-in techniques and some practice on the non-aiki side of the techniques, he would have had a much easier time of a couple of points in that.

So, how does this apply to WC? Well, much of Aikido has a very heavy focus on the single principle of aiki. Aiki takes precedence in at least most of the training I've seen in their mainline - precedence over effectiveness. It becomes an absolute, rather than "best, when available". So, they practice using attacks that make it available, and work to find ways to make it available in other attacks. From some of the discussions I've seen on WC, it seems perhaps some of this same process has happened in that art. There seems to be an absolutist approach to some of the principles.

The principles are guidelines on how the art works, but should not restrict from alternatives. I don't know the WC principles well enough to use one as an example, but you guys can probably translate this to your art. When I'm teaching NGA, aiki is still a primary principle. It's still "best, when available". But I also teach force-on-force options (hard blocks that jam the momentum, big strikes) and push-pull responses (more Judo-style). Why? At the very least, they are fixes for when you screw up. Equally importantly, sometimes they are better answers than the "aiki" answer. They still fit within the overall principles of the art, but the "aiki" principle doesn't get to dictate our every response. Effectiveness is the primary principle.

Again, back to WC and the discussion at hand. Competition and/or sparring between lineages can bring some of this to the fore. People see a grappling move from a line that sees WC as grappling. The folks who grapple more occasionally see a striking sequence or tactic that defeats them, and they adjust. And someone who trained in something else (as well as their WC), brings in a different step, stance, posture, or punch. It's not purely WC, but it fits nicely, and someone else decides they like it. Effectiveness starts to help evolve how WC is used, and how the principles are implemented.

Again, all this is just my view from the outside, based on what I've heard discussed in this thread and the couple dozen others I've been involved in.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> I've seen enough of that kind of acrimony during splits to last me a lifetime, Geezer. I'm not part of the WC community, but I wish I had a way to help get something like this started.



It would be like climbing a mountain.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> The Aikidoka did a decent job entering to get out of the power zone for those TKD kicks - he needs some close-in tools once he gets there, though. I'd be interested in seeing if his guard improves if he faces someone who throws more punches.



I agree. I was just being silly. lol


----------



## DanT

anerlich said:


> Too many seem to think that no one fights or trains MMA outside of the UFC and other elite shows, and that everyone that trains MMA or has an MMA fight is a full time professional fighter.
> 
> I train at an MMA gym in Sydney. I know a One FC title holder and another guy with multiple national level belts. Both work full time at jobs outside martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> Harsh.
> 
> I think it was Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan who were talking about the "killer nerds" (something like that) who train jiu jitsu. Nothing wrong with being intelligent. Is there?


Nothing wrong with working a full time job, but I guarantee you he's training minimum 5 days a week.

Nothing wrong with intelligence, I've always been a straight A student, I'm talking about "wing chun nerds" who like talking rather than training. I'm sure you know what I mean.


----------



## DanT

Wing Chun works if you master the techniques, understand the concepts, and train hard. Otherwise it sucks.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Actually, there's a ton of stuff not captured on video. Don't let the amount of video that exists fool you. As far as I know, about 5 minutes of my entire training and teaching time has made it to video. The cops I know have only had a tiny fraction of what they do show up on video (body cams capture what's around them, not what they do). The bouncers I've known, there was video of some of what they did (from security cameras), but it only survived until those videos were overwritten.
> 
> We see a lot of videos of fights, and some of attacks, but in the US attacks rarely happen where there are cameras. In some countries (and in some areas of some cities in the US), there are more mounted cameras to capture some of that. Since many attacks don't happen around witnesses, those don't make it onto a smartphone. What makes it on phones, for the most part, is where someone was being obnoxious enough that people decided to start videoing before the action started.


This is starting to border on religious belief isn't it?

You'd rather believe in hidden killers for which we have no evidence than see the reality of what the evidence we do have tells us. That's your perogative I suppose.

I just hope, as I always do in these moments, that those sorts of beliefs don't get you or someone you love hurt or killed one day.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Your assertion is that because you have never seen Aikido work, it does not work.  It is very easy to hide behind Russels teapot as “I don’t have to prove I’m right, because the burden of proof does not lie with the denier”.
> 
> The flip side though is that you are asking us to believe that in all the time Aikido has existed and of all the millions of people that have trained in it, not one has ever successfully been able to use Aikido.  I cannot believe that is the case.
> 
> 
> Nor can I believe that the The Senshusei Course, which was originally created to train Tokyo Riot Police, would have been done so  if the art did not work. No Police organisation would  ask it’s members to train 7 hours a day five day a week for 11 months (or however long it is) for an art which has no merit.


One out of millions is not the best hit rate.

It makes sense for cops, who maybe could use some of those standing joint locks in their repertoire of cop moves to subdue people, or maybe, just maybe there is some teacher of aikido that has modified it enough that it works in combat. (While staying well hidden) Maybe.

Maybe Bigfoot is real. Maybe a teapot' orbits the sun. I can't say for sure.


----------



## Flying Crane

Martial D said:


> Yet, it pretty much is. Since you have DB on ignore(he is one of my fav posters here, go figure), he posted a video of 'russels teapot'. Are you familiar with that particular thought experiment?
> 
> It's certainly relevant here.


Nope, and don't care.


----------



## Flying Crane

Martial D said:


> Yet, it pretty much is. Since you have DB on ignore(he is one of my fav posters here, go figure), he posted a video of 'russels teapot'. Are you familiar with that particular thought experiment?
> 
> It's certainly relevant here.


I've never found a video of you eating breakfast, or taking a dump.  Why has that not been posted?  My conclusion is that you never eat breakfast and never take a dump.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> I've never found a video of * anybody * eating breakfast, or taking a dump.  Why has that not been posted?  My conclusion is that *nobody* never eat(s) breakfast and never take(s) a dump.



Fixed for accuracy.


----------



## wingchun100

DanT said:


> Wing Chun works if you master the techniques, understand the concepts, and train hard. Otherwise it sucks.



Hmm...sounds a lot like other martial arts styles I know.

By that I mean every single one I have ever heard of.


----------



## Flying Crane

Martial D said:


> Fixed for accuracy.


Nope.  You.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> I've never found a video of you eating breakfast, or taking a dump.  Why has that not been posted?  My conclusion is that you never eat breakfast and never take a dump.



Fixed that....

Breakfast:





Dump:


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> This is partly OT, but bear with me - I have a point that pertains to WC, I think. (Or I'm just rambling. Always a possibility.)
> 
> One of the issues I see with that Aikidoka's responses is that I don't see the "jujutsu" (as Kondo Katsuyuki would refer to it) from Daito-ryu - something I don't see trained in most of mainline Aikido (I expect it shows up more in Yoshinkan, possibly in Shotokan/Tomiki). I see him trying to apply the "aiki-jujutsu", which happens at a fairly specific timing. When he misses that timing, he just keeps dragging into the same technique. With just a couple of close-in techniques and some practice on the non-aiki side of the techniques, he would have had a much easier time of a couple of points in that.
> 
> So, how does this apply to WC? Well, much of Aikido has a very heavy focus on the single principle of aiki. Aiki takes precedence in at least most of the training I've seen in their mainline - precedence over effectiveness. It becomes an absolute, rather than "best, when available". So, they practice using attacks that make it available, and work to find ways to make it available in other attacks. From some of the discussions I've seen on WC, it seems perhaps some of this same process has happened in that art. There seems to be an absolutist approach to some of the principles.
> 
> The principles are guidelines on how the art works, but should not restrict from alternatives. I don't know the WC principles well enough to use one as an example, but you guys can probably translate this to your art. When I'm teaching NGA, aiki is still a primary principle. It's still "best, when available". But I also teach force-on-force options (hard blocks that jam the momentum, big strikes) and push-pull responses (more Judo-style). Why? At the very least, they are fixes for when you screw up. Equally importantly, sometimes they are better answers than the "aiki" answer. They still fit within the overall principles of the art, but the "aiki" principle doesn't get to dictate our every response. Effectiveness is the primary principle.
> 
> Again, back to WC and the discussion at hand. Competition and/or sparring between lineages can bring some of this to the fore. People see a grappling move from a line that sees WC as grappling. The folks who grapple more occasionally see a striking sequence or tactic that defeats them, and they adjust. And someone who trained in something else (as well as their WC), brings in a different step, stance, posture, or punch. It's not purely WC, but it fits nicely, and someone else decides they like it. Effectiveness starts to help evolve how WC is used, and how the principles are implemented.
> 
> Again, all this is just my view from the outside, based on what I've heard discussed in this thread and the couple dozen others I've been involved in.



First agree on the review of the Aikidoka having what I would call a shallow tool box.  As an example there was a point where he was basically set up perfectly to lock the opponent's leg for a tap out.  Instead he added a few extra steps to do the same arm lock he did time and again.

I would also agree that this shallow tool box is true of some Lineages of WC as well.  Some expect the following to just "happen".
1. If you attack properly the attacks alone will be a defense.  Punches become tan saus, or your counter punches are so effective that your opponents attack does nothing.  
(Can this work yes but that can't be your only thought to defense)
2. You do not need to seek a superior position.  Your attacks will put the enemy in an inferior position.

(Again this can work but to rely on it exclusively? Nope)


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> Wing Chun works if you master the techniques, understand the concepts, and train hard. Otherwise it sucks.



But do a search for almost any video of Wing Chun guys sparring and you would be lead to think otherwise!


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> This is starting to border on religious belief isn't it?
> 
> You'd rather believe in hidden killers for which we have no evidence than see the reality of what the evidence we do have tells us. That's your perogative I suppose.
> 
> I just hope, as I always do in these moments, that those sorts of beliefs don't get you or someone you love hurt or killed one day.



No you can actually logic it out tbh.

Combat is one of the ultimate engines of Darwinism.  When we are looking at many TMAs (Wing Chun included) we see arts that existed in combat or combat like situations (no rules competitions) for well over a century.  If they didn't work then these arts wouldn't still be around, similar to why we no longer use muzzle loading rifles on the battlefield.

For newer arts (say Judo and the various flavors of Aikido) we need to look at how close they are to their core art and did that core art work?  Both Judo and Yoshinkan Aikido are only a step or two removed from their Jujutsu roots.  As such it is not out of the realm of belief to say they would work.  It's when you get further away from those roots, such as the very Aiki heavy Schools of Aikido that are closer to O'Sensei's "final vision" where the questions arise and you know what, most Aikido Sensei's in my area recognize this.  Let me explain.

You will not find an honest "Aiki heavy" Sensei who says "yes if you are looking for a competitive martial art or a quick and direct form of self defense I am your guy." They not only know but take pride in the fact that they are teaching the enlightened Art that Ueshiba taught in the end with the purpose of Spiritual Cultivation as the primary goal.  There is a reason these people half jokingly call the Yoshinkan School students "evil Aikidoka".  I think it is best exemplified in an article entitled "The trouble with Aikido..." 47. The trouble with aikido



> Other people look at Shioda Gozo, my friend continued, the late master of Yoshinkan style aikido. Videos of him depict a very short, wiry little man who could toss big, burly judo players around at will. It looks like fakey stuff on cursory examination. But if you take apart his technique, he had incredible timing, balance and sense of space. And his aikido was scary. If you weren’t ready as an uke, you could really hurt yourself because the force he generated in your disbalancing was very strong. I can see Shioda sensei easily dislocating wrists or knocking people out when their bodies slammed into the mat.
> 
> THAT kind of aikido was truly both an art and martial, at the same time. It was beautiful, but carried with it a sense of “martial”-ness. It was not that far removed from its budo roots...



It's really not unlike Karate really, there is no "Aikido" just as there is no "Karate" there are, last I checked 16 or 17 different styles of Aikido at this point. Yoshinkan Aikido, Shodokan Aikido, Yoseikan and Yoshokai come to mind immediately.

The problem is illustrated in the stereotype and how it relates to the quote above.  When most people think Aikido they think of an effortless art that is designed not to inflict injury as that is what O'Sensei sought near the end of his life.  You walk into a Yoshinkan or Yoshokai dojo though and wonder why you need to do so much ukemi, then see people getting dropped HARD and fast and you will say "this isn't for me" and you see these "hard" forms of Aikido at few and far between schools.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> Nope.  You.


Now you are getting ridiculous. Again, you disingenuously toggle between specifics and generalities.

And again you have ignored my points in favour of passive aggressiveness. 

I'm not saying there is no evidence for any specific person doing x, (which is also true) but that there is no evidence of x happening at all.  This is why your analogy was dishonest, and why I fixed it for you.


----------



## KPM

I recall the old saying...."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> No you can actually logic it out tbh.



Indeed you can, such as;


> Combat is one of the ultimate engines of Darwinism.  When we are looking at many TMAs (Wing Chun included) we see arts that existed in combat or combat like situations (no rules competitions) for well over a century.  If they didn't work then these arts wouldn't still be around, similar to why we no longer use muzzle loading rifles on the battlefield.


And like firearms, unarmed combat has also evolved.  Meanwhile most TMAs remain sequestered and crystalized in their dojos and lineages, generations removed from real world combat application. It's been a very long time since TMAs were used for anything resembling war, and I personally believe the training received by those warriors would look little to nothing like what we have today.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> I recall the old saying...."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


That's why I said a teapot in space is a bad analogy.  We understand cosmology and that we have launched no teapots into the asteroid belt's orbit.  What we debate here is anecdotal experience.  They are very different things.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> I recall the old saying...."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Old, and false if you are to remain scientific. 

Most scientific theories read something like- If X is true, we should expect to see Y and Z. If Y and Z can not be found, X is most likely not true.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> But do a search for almost any video of Wing Chun guys sparring and you would be lead to think otherwise!



OK,  I've got the day off (too much time on my hands) so I'm off to search for the absolute _worst WC sparring video_ I can find on Youtube. Something embarrassingly awkward, stupid and unrealistic. If I find something good (i.e. really, really _bad_) I'll post it and then see if anybody can top it! Wish me luck.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> Old, and false if you are to remain scientific.
> 
> Most scientific theories read something like- If X is true, we should expect to see Y and Z. If Y and Z can not be found, X is most likely not true.



I do medical research.  In the medical world, saying there is no scientific evidence for a treatment's effectiveness is not the same thing as producing a study that shows that there is evidence that a treatment is ineffective.  So, it is indeed very true that ........"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> I recall the old saying...."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


This ties directly back to the OP, is Wing Chun being used wrong? Myself, I feel that Wing Chun is a specalty method  of refinement while others believe it is a stand alone all inclusive method. I would argue that for the latter, it has been forced to fit that paradigm due to bandwagoning. 

From my viewpoint, evidence is plentiful that it works fantastic for what it was designed for. My immediate attention is drawn to those who have successfully integrated Wing Chun into their MMA or Boxing. Many argue that it is no longer Wing Chun, because it doesn't look like it. That more than the principles need be present. 

From my view of refinement, integration alone changes the dynamics. The goal isn't  to refine your movement to mimic Wing Chun, it is to hone your movement, to maximize its efficiency within the parameters of your system when at close range. For this, proof of effectiveness is plentiful, the likes of Allan Orr comes to mind.

For those towing the Wing Chun is  an all inclusive stand alone method line. Proof is elusive as to its effectiveness as such a method.

From how I see it, you can train harder or you can train smarter. Fighting should never be about styles. Names like Wing Chun or Kung Fu won't save you. Adhereing  to dogma for the sake of purity won't either. Fighting is about doing what ever it takes to increase your chances of winning. If it isn't recognizable as something specific, while engaged in the action, who cares. The goal is to win the fight, not look a specific way. Its not dancing.

It is possible to teach a method that doesn't look the same when fought with. I have yet to encounter anyone who uses every technique they learned from the art they studied while fighting. Most individuals only use a handful of techniques in a fight or competition, ones they are competent with. If some of those techniques come from another art does it really matter?


----------



## KPM

*This ties directly back to the OP, is Wing Chun being used wrong? Myself, I feel that Wing Chun is a specalty method  of refinement while others believe it is a stand alone all inclusive method. I would argue that for the latter, it has been forced to fit that paradigm due to bandwagoning.*

---I think there is merit to what you have been saying about Wing Chun being useful for "refining" another method's "gross motor skills." I'm just not sure that was the original intent or what it was originally designed for.

*From my viewpoint, evidence is plentiful that it works fantastic for what it was designed for.*

---Which, in conjunction with my comment above, leads me to believe that fighting "back in the day" was a bit different from what it has evolved to in modern times.  For example, the emphasis on lower guards and protecting the chest in TCMAs leads me to believe that, short of battlefield encounters, there may have been a general agreement that they didn't go for the head nearly as often as people do today.



*From my view of refinement, integration alone changes the dynamics. The goal isn't  to refine your movement to mimic Wing Chun, it is to hone your movement, to maximize its efficiency within the parameters of your system when at close range. For this, proof of effectiveness is plentiful, the likes of Allan Orr comes to mind.*

---But then, if that is the intent, why learn the entire system of Wing Chun from start to finish?


*From how I see it, you can train harder or you can train smarter. Fighting should never be about styles. Names like Wing Chun or Kung Fu won't save you. Adhereing  to dogma for the sake of purity won't either. Fighting is about doing what ever it takes to increase your chances of winning. If it isn't recognizable as something specific, while engaged in the action, who cares. The goal is to win the fight, not look a specific way. Its not dancing.*

---While I agree with your sentiment, I don't agree about the final result.   If someone has been spending multiple hours and months and years training a martial art  with a specific biomechanics and way of moving....and then ALL of it goes completely out the window under pressure, then they have been wasting their time.   It doesn't have to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms, but if it is completely unrecognizable in the ring, then why are they practicing that martial art?  Why aren't they practicing something that is closer to what they are actually doing in the ring?  Wouldn't that be much more efficient?   Wouldn't everyone expect that a seasoned boxer attacked by a mugger at the club one night would be throwing jabs, crosses and hooks that looked like boxing????


*It is possible to teach a method that doesn't look the same when fought with.*

---Then I would say that is a very inefficient method!

* I have yet to encounter anyone who uses every technique they learned from the art they studied while fighting. Most individuals only use a handful of techniques in a fight or competition, ones they are competent with.*

---Well, yeah!  But if your martial art teaches you a specific way to move....a specific biomechanics, why would you expect to use a different biomechanics or move completely different when under stress?  That makes no sense to me.


----------



## wingchun100

Nobody Important said:


> From my viewpoint, evidence is plentiful that it works fantastic for what it was designed for. My immediate attention is drawn to those who have successfully integrated Wing Chun into their MMA or Boxing. Many argue that it is no longer Wing Chun, because it doesn't look like it. That more than the principles need be present.



No one entering MMA looks anything like their original style because that first M means mixed. I don't know why people throw hissy fits over Wing Chun in MMA not looking like Wing Chun. NOTHING LOOKS LIKE ANYTHING. Oy vey!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> *This ties directly back to the OP, is Wing Chun being used wrong? Myself, I feel that Wing Chun is a specalty method  of refinement while others believe it is a stand alone all inclusive method. I would argue that for the latter, it has been forced to fit that paradigm due to bandwagoning.*
> 
> ---I think there is merit to what you have been saying about Wing Chun being useful for "refining" another method's "gross motor skills." I'm just not sure that was the original intent or what it was originally designed for.
> 
> *From my viewpoint, evidence is plentiful that it works fantastic for what it was designed for.*
> 
> ---Which, in conjunction with my comment above, leads me to believe that fighting "back in the day" was a bit different from what it has evolved to in modern times.  For example, the emphasis on lower guards and protecting the chest in TCMAs leads me to believe that, short of battlefield encounters, there may have been a general agreement that they didn't go for the head nearly as often as people do today.
> 
> 
> 
> *From my view of refinement, integration alone changes the dynamics. The goal isn't  to refine your movement to mimic Wing Chun, it is to hone your movement, to maximize its efficiency within the parameters of your system when at close range. For this, proof of effectiveness is plentiful, the likes of Allan Orr comes to mind.*
> 
> ---But then, if that is the intent, why learn the entire system of Wing Chun from start to finish?
> 
> 
> *From how I see it, you can train harder or you can train smarter. Fighting should never be about styles. Names like Wing Chun or Kung Fu won't save you. Adhereing  to dogma for the sake of purity won't either. Fighting is about doing what ever it takes to increase your chances of winning. If it isn't recognizable as something specific, while engaged in the action, who cares. The goal is to win the fight, not look a specific way. Its not dancing.*
> 
> ---While I agree with your sentiment, I don't agree about the final result.   If someone has been spending multiple hours and months and years training a martial art  with a specific biomechanics and way of moving....and then ALL of it goes completely out the window under pressure, then they have been wasting their time.   It doesn't have to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms, but if it is completely unrecognizable in the ring, then why are they practicing that martial art?  Why aren't they practicing something that is closer to what they are actually doing in the ring?  Wouldn't that be much more efficient?   Wouldn't everyone expect that a seasoned boxer attacked by a mugger at the club one night would be throwing jabs, crosses and hooks that looked like boxing????
> 
> 
> *It is possible to teach a method that doesn't look the same when fought with.*
> 
> ---Then I would say that is a very inefficient method!
> 
> * I have yet to encounter anyone who uses every technique they learned from the art they studied while fighting. Most individuals only use a handful of techniques in a fight or competition, ones they are competent with.*
> 
> ---Well, yeah!  But if your martial art teaches you a specific way to move....a specific biomechanics, why would you expect to use a different biomechanics or move completely different when under stress?  That makes no sense to me.


Regarding the biomechanics, you are making an assumption that when it looks different from how it is trained, then the biomechanics are being thrown out the window.  Personally, while I believe that may be happening, it also may not be happening.  Just because it looks different does not automatically mean that the biomechanics have been abandoned.  And it is very possible that this is more or less true for some people than it is for others.

Speaking of my own system, i know that I can throw my techniques in ways that absolutely look very different from the training standard that we use for drilling the technique.  But the biomechanics are still in place and it is still consistent with our system.

So I would say, yes, and no, and maybe and sometimes, and it really depends.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> No one entering MMA looks anything like their original style because that first M means mixed. I don't know why people throw hissy fits over Wing Chun in MMA not looking like Wing Chun. NOTHING LOOKS LIKE ANYTHING. Oy vey!



That's not true.  You can certainly pick out the guys that have a predominantly wrestling background from the guys that have a predominantly BJJ background.  You can pick out the guys that have Muay Thai training from the guys that have just learned to do passable stand up fighting to augment their BJJ.   Early on in his fighting career, Machida was still doing a lot of recognizable Karate moves and having good success. 

That being said....there are certainly plenty of fighters that you can't tell apart.  But that is because they are all training the same way.  For the most part "MMA" has become its own style now.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Indeed you can, such as;
> 
> And like firearms, unarmed combat has also evolved.  Meanwhile most TMAs remain sequestered and crystalized in their dojos and lineages, generations removed from real world combat application. It's been a very long time since TMAs were used for anything resembling war, and I personally believe the training received by those warriors would look little to nothing like what we have today.



It depends on the dojo.  Example my current school.  We learn both Kali and TWC.  We have students sparring with knives virtually out of the gate, full speed, we just limit targets to limbs at first.  As you advance then we widen the available targets.  The WC just has the sparring start later because we don't want to buy that much body armor (it's a not for profit school).  Additionally the Sifu is a DOJ instructor and his Sifu is a DOJ and DOD instructor.  As such they teach real world application based on years of LE experience.

The issue with TMAs isn't that they are removed.  Biomechanics are biomechanics so what worked against punches, kicks and takedowns 200 years ago will work today.  Biologically we haven't evolved.  The issue is the instructors.  Martial Arts has become a business for too many instructors.  They do what the do to keep paying students and for many teachers that means making things FEEL exciting but keeping things as injury free as possible.  Heck there is a Gracie school near me that teaches Muay Thai but advertises "it's too dangerous so we don't do sparring."

1. For some Aikido schools that means the compliant uke, that way they don't get chased off by their intro to Aikido being seemingly endless ukemi before they learn techniques.
2. For WC that means schools saying "the forms, chi sau and lap sau drills are all you need to fight."
3. It leads to Krav Maga schools saying "it's too dangerous to spar."
4. It leads to Karate schools having belts awarded by kata performance alone.

BUT there are WC schools like mine.  The Krav Maga "school" that trains and spars in street clothes 365 at the local park nearby, the Aikido schools that remember the budo they come from.  They are there, you just have to look for them.


----------



## Martial D

wingchun100 said:


> No one entering MMA looks anything like their original style because that first M means mixed. I don't know why people throw hissy fits over Wing Chun in MMA not looking like Wing Chun. NOTHING LOOKS LIKE ANYTHING. Oy vey!


Not so. 

Most mma guys either(quite recognizably) box or do Mui Thai at range, a few(northcut, GSP, Thompson, Machida(recognizably) use karate instead. Judo and wrestling takedowns tend to look just like judo and wrestling, and if it hits the ground, much of the time a series of very recognizable BJJ transitions lead to very recognizable BJJ chokes and joint locks.

If it doesn't look like anything, you probably aren't doing it right.


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> It depends on the dojo.  Example my current school.  We learn both Kali and TWC.  We have students sparring with knives virtually out of the gate, full speed, we just limit targets to limbs at first.  As you advance then we widen the available targets.  The WC just has the sparring start later because we don't want to buy that much body armor (it's a not for profit school).  Additionally the Sifu is a DOJ instructor and his Sifu is a DOJ and DOD instructor.  As such they teach real world application based on years of LE experience.
> 
> The issue with TMAs isn't that they are removed.  Biomechanics are biomechanics so what worked against punches, kicks and takedowns 200 years ago will work today.  Biologically we haven't evolved.  The issue is the instructors.  Martial Arts has become a business for too many instructors.  They do what the do to keep paying students and for many teachers that means making things FEEL exciting but keeping things as injury free as possible.  Heck there is a Gracie school near me that teaches Muay Thai but advertises "it's too dangerous so we don't do sparring."
> 
> 1. For some Aikido schools that means the compliant uke, that way they don't get chased off by their intro to Aikido being seemingly endless ukemi before they learn techniques.
> 2. For WC that means schools saying "the forms, chi sau and lap sau drills are all you need to fight."
> 3. It leads to Krav Maga schools saying "it's too dangerous to spar."
> 4. It leads to Karate schools having belts awarded by kata performance alone.
> 
> BUT there are WC schools like mine.  The Krav Maga "school" that trains and spars in street clothes 365 at the local park nearby, the Aikido schools that remember the budo they come from.  They are there, you just have to look for them.



I would say if it is as you say, and nothing has changed with the martial arts in general in hundreds of years, and they don't work now, then they didn't work then.

I do not believe that however. What I do believe, as you seem to also, is that how something is trained is as or more important than what is trained.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> I would say if it is as you say, and nothing has changed with the martial arts in general in hundreds of years, and they don't work now, then they didn't work then.
> 
> I do not believe that however. What I do believe, as you seem to also, is that how something is trained is as or more important than what is trained.



Reading your last paragraph e are in complete agreement regarding what is important in such martial arts is the instruction.  I think the main issue is this...

If you aren't talking martial arts actually taught to warriors (FMA, HEMA, Kenjutsu etc) what tested martial arts was the "challenge" culture.  Example Yip Man's school became popular NOT because it was WC, or because he was such a well respected teacher from the Main Land.  It became popular because people like WSL and William Cheung gained reputations for winning challenge matches.  People will pay to learn from someone teaching winners.

Welp that kinda of advertising is frowned upon these days, especially in the West, so finding a "good" TMA teacher is far more difficult.  You have to look past the art itself.  It took me about a year either emailing or calling instructors asking them questions (first telling them I am a LEO so they didn't think I was hot head just looking for a fight) before I found my school.  Luckily, most of the schools were honest and said "oh you are a cop and so you are looking for true combative instruction?  Yeah that's not us."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> It would be like climbing a mountain.


I've done that. I was much younger then.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> This is starting to border on religious belief isn't it?
> 
> You'd rather believe in hidden killers for which we have no evidence than see the reality of what the evidence we do have tells us. That's your perogative I suppose.
> 
> I just hope, as I always do in these moments, that those sorts of beliefs don't get you or someone you love hurt or killed one day.


Really? What part of what I said sounded at all religious-y? I simply cautioned that there's a lot that is not captured, because you made a statement that seemed to say you thought nearly everything was.

There's plenty of evidence to draw on, but we have to acknowledge the gaps and bias inherent in the data gathering method. That's not religious - that's reasoned research.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> One out of millions is not the best hit rate.
> 
> It makes sense for cops, who maybe could use some of those standing joint locks in their repertoire of cop moves to subdue people, or maybe, just maybe there is some teacher of aikido that has modified it enough that it works in combat. (While staying well hidden) Maybe.
> 
> Maybe Bigfoot is real. Maybe a teapot' orbits the sun. I can't say for sure.


The majority of Aikido I see isn't combat-ready. That's my opinion from having viewed and participated in classes in several places, as well as watching videos. There are some places that teach differently, and some of the aiki arts and lines of Aikido aren't as soft.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Old, and false if you are to remain scientific.
> 
> Most scientific theories read something like- If X is true, we should expect to see Y and Z. If Y and Z can not be found, X is most likely not true.


Valid enough, except that scientists don't draw conclusions based upon that absence. It leads them to be more skeptical of the original theory, and to question why Y and Z would not be present if they existed. That's the first step to confirming (as best one ever can) that they likely don't exist. If the data gathering method will miss a large portion of the population studied, then that's one possible source of the omission.

And in this case we know - quite clearly - that a large portion of the population of defense usage is missing. Heck, the clearest application of Aikido in a defensive situation I can think of is from a video - but the video is after the fact. It's news footage about an attempted armed robbery, where an Aikido student (working at a Baskin Robbins) takes away a gun. There are witnesses, but no video of the actual event. That's not at all unusual. Most assault cases do not have some convenient video of the attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> For example, the emphasis on lower guards and protecting the chest in TCMAs leads me to believe that, short of battlefield encounters, there may have been a general agreement that they didn't go for the head nearly as often as people do today.


You see this in Western bare-knuckle boxing, too. Most likely, it's because of gloves. Without gloves, I'd much rather hit body, unless a really nice chin shot opens up. With gloves, I'll pressure the head much more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Regarding the biomechanics, you are making an assumption that when it looks different from how it is trained, then the biomechanics are being thrown out the window.  Personally, while I believe that may be happening, it also may not be happening.  Just because it looks different does not automatically mean that the biomechanics have been abandoned.  And it is very possible that this is more or less true for some people than it is for others.
> 
> Speaking of my own system, i know that I can throw my techniques in ways that absolutely look very different from the training standard that we use for drilling the technique.  But the biomechanics are still in place and it is still consistent with our system.
> 
> So I would say, yes, and no, and maybe and sometimes, and it really depends.


I'll back you up on this one. When I train on the "stylized" versions of the techniques (similar to training forms and chi sau in WC), I have a fairly upright, relaxed, centered and high-standing posture. It actually works better with those versions. When I get to application and sparring, my posture shifts. My motions are mostly shorter. To me, it still looks like NGA. I don't know of any NGA purists who would argue it's no longer NGA because it looks different. They may argue I'm not doing enough Aikido in my Aikido, and I'd be okay with that statement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In WC, When you punch your right hand out, do you pull your left hand back at the same time? This punch out and pull back coordination will cause your body to rotate. It will help you to generate punching power. I just don't see this training exist in the WC system.

In the following clip, you can see when he punches one hand out, his other hand is "static".


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> *This ties directly back to the OP, is Wing Chun being used wrong? Myself, I feel that Wing Chun is a specalty method  of refinement while others believe it is a stand alone all inclusive method. I would argue that for the latter, it has been forced to fit that paradigm due to bandwagoning.*
> 
> ---I think there is merit to what you have been saying about Wing Chun being useful for "refining" another method's "gross motor skills." I'm just not sure that was the original intent or what it was originally designed for.



It's an issue, there are too many conflicting theories out there, but I have seen success from my viewpoint in myself and others. So I'll take that as if I'm on the right track.



KPM said:


> *From my viewpoint, evidence is plentiful that it works fantastic for what it was designed for.*
> 
> ---Which, in conjunction with my comment above, leads me to believe that fighting "back in the day" was a bit different from what it has evolved to in modern times.  For example, the emphasis on lower guards and protecting the chest in TCMAs leads me to believe that, short of battlefield encounters, there may have been a general agreement that they didn't go for the head nearly as often as people do today.



I don't like to speculate on how or why things may have been done back then. I'd like to think that fighting back then, as today, in a survival setting was all or nothing.




KPM said:


> *From my view of refinement, integration alone changes the dynamics. The goal isn't  to refine your movement to mimic Wing Chun, it is to hone your movement, to maximize its efficiency within the parameters of your system when at close range. For this, proof of effectiveness is plentiful, the likes of Allan Orr comes to mind.*
> 
> ---But then, if that is the intent, why learn the entire system of Wing Chun from start to finish?


Personally I don't think it is necessary, but I can see the value in doing so because you don't know what aspects of the art you'll need now or later. And for an art to continue on and not just be absorbed into another method it needs a full dynamic of what it is presenting. That being said the minutia of it isn't required to understand or utilize the gist if it.



KPM said:


> *From how I see it, you can train harder or you can train smarter. Fighting should never be about styles. Names like Wing Chun or Kung Fu won't save you. Adhereing  to dogma for the sake of purity won't either. Fighting is about doing what ever it takes to increase your chances of winning. If it isn't recognizable as something specific, while engaged in the action, who cares. The goal is to win the fight, not look a specific way. Its not dancing.*
> 
> ---While I agree with your sentiment, I don't agree about the final result.   If someone has been spending multiple hours and months and years training a martial art  with a specific biomechanics and way of moving....and then ALL of it goes completely out the window under pressure, then they have been wasting their time.   It doesn't have to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms, but if it is completely unrecognizable in the ring, then why are they practicing that martial art?  Why aren't they practicing something that is closer to what they are actually doing in the ring?  Wouldn't that be much more efficient?   Wouldn't everyone expect that a seasoned boxer attacked by a mugger at the club one night would be throwing jabs, crosses and hooks that looked like boxing????



MMA is founded on the premise that no one art can adequately provide answers for all ranges and methods of defense and attack. It is naive to assume that an art based on close range tactics is appropriate for long range delivery. This is why MMA uses arts like Boxing for middle range, Muay Thai for long range, BJJ for close range. Attempt to apply Muay Thai in a grappling scenario and it will look nothing like Muay Thai. It's bio mechanics are not designed for that range or method. When Wing Chun is applied in this same paradigm you will inevitably lose your structure and mechanics. It is only good for the method and range it was developed for, IMO, the clinch. Trying to use it otherwise causes a loss of mechanics forcing you to constantly reacquaint, in layman's term, overuse of Biu Jee to constantly regain position. This put you on perpetual defense, because it's not being used what it was meant for. 



KPM said:


> *It is possible to teach a method that doesn't look the same when fought with.*
> 
> ---Then I would say that is a very inefficient method!


 And I would retort that it's only necessary to use methods that are appropriate to the situation. Now, I have no problem with using a crescent wrench to drive a nail, if that is all I have to do so. It can work in a pinch, but if I have a hammer in my tool box, why use the wrench? Efficiency is using appropriate methods for response. Wing Chun is, IMO, not a very good grappling art. I may be able to use it to defend against a weak grappling attack, but if I know Jujutsu also, why wouldn't I use what I know will work versus something that may not. Switching back and forth from one method to another isn't difficult, if it were, MMA would not be effective.



KPM said:


> *I have yet to encounter anyone who uses every technique they learned from the art they studied while fighting. Most individuals only use a handful of techniques in a fight or competition, ones they are competent with.*
> 
> ---Well, yeah!  But if your martial art teaches you a specific way to move....a specific biomechanics, why would you expect to use a different biomechanics or move completely different when under stress?  That makes no sense to me.



Because it can't teach you to defend or attack effectively and efficiently from all ranges and methods of attack and defense. Very few arts have a cohesive and comprehensive integration of Punching, Kicking, Throwing and Grappling that can be used in general self defense situations. Wing Chun, IMO, does not possess this quality, I believe it is a specialized method based around the clinch from close range. I have yet to find anyone who can convince me that it is an effective all around fighting method, the evidence just isn't there. This doesn't mean it is a worthless or ineffective method, just that I feel it is being used to achieve the wrong purpose. There are far more effective and efficient methods for boxing and grappling, that being said, I feel their close range tactics could be elevated through the integration of Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM

Here is an excellent article that speaks to many of the points touched on in this discussion:

http://rackemannwingchun.com.au/win...-art-direction-needs-take-survive-modern-era/


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I think there is a difference here because here we are talking about anecdotal experience, not an assertion inserted into something that is based on empirically proven science.  That said, while it's just sparring, and just TMA vs TMA.



The point is we should be looking for the evidence and not just following the dogma.

There seems to be this idea that because we can't get definitive evidence on everything we shouldn't bother with any of it.

And so therefore my opinion based on no evidence has the same weight as yours based on only some evidence.

Dogma hits this one a lot. Ask questions about the big bang until you get to I don't know. And so therefore god exists.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> The WC community is _already_ totally isolated, not only from others, but from each other. Most rarely spar among themselves and seldom if ever with other styles. In fact, years back, when our association split, members of the other faction were forbidden from engaging with us (as well as with other WC lineages). My old si-hing and training partner of many many years wouldn't even talk to me!
> 
> With attitudes like _that_, merging with others is not a possibility at this point. I'd just like to get together with a few local groups and build up some trust. Hard to do in a style where everybody believes that they have the only true lineage, and can't work with anybody else because to lose means totally losing face.
> 
> My attitude is to do chi sau and let maybe let people punch me a few times first just to show them that I'm not there to be a jerk. Then when we get serious, it's not about who wins, but about what we can learn from each other. In competitive arts everybody gets hit, or loses from time to time. That's what makes it competition, right? Only when things are bogus to begin with,is "losing" such a problem for people.



Where we want people who could come in and clean house. That helps our training.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> That's why I said a teapot in space is a bad analogy.  We understand cosmology and that we have launched no teapots into the asteroid belt's orbit.  What we debate here is anecdotal experience.  They are very different things.



We understand martial arts from resisted training and competition.

When we discuss anecdotal evidence then we need to look at conformation bias. And why someone may still do an ineffective martial art even after a hundred years of war.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Really? What part of what I said sounded at all religious-y? I simply cautioned that there's a lot that is not captured, because you made a statement that seemed to say you thought nearly everything was.
> 
> There's plenty of evidence to draw on, but we have to acknowledge the gaps and bias inherent in the data gathering method. That's not religious - that's reasoned research.



It is when we fill I don't know. With God. Or in this case Aikido. That it gets religiousy.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> we have launched no teapots into the asteroid belt's orbit.



None that you know about, anyway ...


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This punch out and pull back coordination will cause your body to rotate.



Not true. It could, if you allow it to. But it's not an all or nothing thing IME.

But, I agree on the rotational aspect WRT your power generation comment. However, "push / pull" is key in a lot of WC .



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just don't see this training exist in the WC system.



Well, it is there. So...good thing your main art is not WC I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is when we fill I don't know. With God. Or in this case Aikido. That it gets religiousy.


Show me where I filled "I don't know" with "Aikido". All I did was point out the problem with a statement that was made, which statement claimed that nearly everything was captured on camera. And that's a dangerous way to work with data - it leans on confirmation bias, just as much as assuming what's not seen does exist.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Show me where I filled "I don't know" with "Aikido". All I did was point out the problem with a statement that was made, which statement claimed that nearly everything was captured on camera. And that's a dangerous way to work with data - it leans on confirmation bias, just as much as assuming what's not seen does exist.



Wait but then cant I just claim that just because it was not written down in a forum post. Dosent mean you never said it. Not everything you say gets written down.

But yeah. I was speaking in general terms


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Show me where I filled "I don't know" with "Aikido". All I did was point out the problem with a statement that was made, which statement claimed that nearly everything was captured on camera. And that's a dangerous way to work with data - it leans on confirmation bias, just as much as assuming what's not seen does exist.


Not just anything mind you. A style of supposed combat that has been taught to millions. Out of all that time, all those people, and not one video(or any other bit of evidence besides anecdotal.

This is exactly how religion works! No positive evidence at all yet a belief still exists. When prodded, the belief boils down to a subjective, personal Revelation. But you can't prove god doesn't exist somewhere.

This is the sort of inversion of the burden of proof that is the lifeblood of religion..and bullshido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Wait but then cant I just claim that just because it was not written down in a forum post. Dosent mean you never said it. Not everything you say gets written down.
> 
> But yeah. I was speaking in general terms


You can, in fact, assert that. It's not a positive assertion, but you could say that lack of me having said it in a forum doesn't prove I've never said it, because it doesn't. Most of what I've said never makes it onto a forum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Not just anything mind you. A style of supposed combat that has been taught to millions. Out of all that time, all those people, and not one video(or any other bit of evidence besides anecdotal.
> 
> This is exactly how religion works! No positive evidence at all yet a belief still exists. When prodded, the belief boils down to a subjective, personal Revelation. But you can't prove god doesn't exist somewhere.
> 
> This is the sort of inversion of the burden of proof that is the lifeblood of religion..and bullshido.


Oh, I agree that there's a problem. And the evidence that exists supports the assertion. But I do know people who've trained in Aiki arts and put them to use as LEO and bouncers, as well as folks who've defended themselves with them. It'd be better if there was some video so we could learn from it, and ensure we know which parts of their training helped. But the lack of that video isn't entirely surprising. There's not a lot of video of any specific martial art being used in self-defense situations. Much of what we find could belong to any of a number of arts, and some appears to belong to no art, at all.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I agree that there's a problem. And the evidence that exists supports the assertion. But I do know people who've trained in Aiki arts and put them to use as LEO and bouncers, as well as folks who've defended themselves with them. It'd be better if there was some video so we could learn from it, and ensure we know which parts of their training helped. But the lack of that video isn't entirely surprising. There's not a lot of video of any specific martial art being used in self-defense situations. Much of what we find could belong to any of a number of arts, and some appears to belong to no art, at all.


Well, I am not about to deny your personal experience, but I'mma just play my usual role and assume things that seem untrue are untrue pending contrary evidence.

Because for now, the fairly plentiful amount of evidence we do have seems to go the other direction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Well, I am not about to deny your personal experience, but I'mma just play my usual role and assume things that seem untrue are untrue pending contrary evidence.
> 
> Because for now, the fairly plentiful amount of evidence we do have seems to go the other direction.


And that's a perfectly valid stance. I've no argument with that.


----------



## anerlich

DanT said:


> Nothing wrong with working a full time job, but I guarantee you he's training minimum 5 days a week.
> 
> Nothing wrong with intelligence, I've always been a straight A student, I'm talking about "wing chun nerds" who like talking rather than training. I'm sure you know what I mean.



Myeah. 5 days a week isn't a huge ask for a fit young single person. I'm 62 and have no problems with 4 days a week, sometimes 5.

Yes, I know what you mean. Now.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I agree that there's a problem. And the evidence that exists supports the assertion. But I do know people who've trained in Aiki arts and put them to use as LEO and bouncers, as well as folks who've defended themselves with them. It'd be better if there was some video so we could learn from it, and ensure we know which parts of their training helped. But the lack of that video isn't entirely surprising. There's not a lot of video of any specific martial art being used in self-defense situations. Much of what we find could belong to any of a number of arts, and some appears to belong to no art, at all.



I know guys who's training consisted entirely of drinking too many rums on a Friday night.

We probably need more data before we can consider either rumbos or Aikido as a viable self defence method.


----------



## Nobody Important

drop bear said:


> I know guys who's training consisted entirely of drinking too many rums on a Friday night.
> 
> We probably need more data before we can consider either rumbos or Aikido as a viable self defence method.


Now that's harsh. Rum has a long track record of being a fight enhancement supplement, lol.


----------



## drop bear

Nobody Important said:


> Now that's harsh. Rum has a long track record of being a fight enhancement supplement, lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I know guys who's training consisted entirely of drinking too many rums on a Friday night.
> 
> We probably need more data before we can consider either rumbos or Aikido as a viable self defence method.


Well, if we throw out the real world experiences, we pretty much have to acknowledge we have no good evidence for any type of training's effectiveness for self-defense.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Well, if we throw out the real world experiences, we pretty much have to acknowledge we have no good evidence for any type of training's effectiveness for self-defense.



We are not throwing out real world experiences but taking them along with other evidence. If all we could gain was anecdotal evidence. Then there would not be enough data.

If we add data as in video. Success in training success in competition. Real world self defence And evidence from experts. If we can actually source these incidents or see them.

Then we can look at the trends and build a better picture. 

I mean these things cant just have worked. We have to be able to recreate them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> We are not throwing out real world experiences but taking them along with other evidence. If all we could gain was anecdotal evidence. Then there would not be enough data.
> 
> If we add data as in video. Success in training success in competition. Real world self defence And evidence from experts. If we can actually source these incidents or see them.
> 
> Then we can look at the trends and build a better picture.
> 
> I mean these things cant just have worked. We have to be able to recreate them.


Ah, I see your point. And that's a difference in my perspective and yours. I see little in video that reflects the training I received. Only pieces show up, so I wouldn't expect you to have a complete view. I have seen more (and felt more), so I have different evidence from training.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah, I see your point. And that's a difference in my perspective and yours. I see little in video that reflects the training I received. Only pieces show up, so I wouldn't expect you to have a complete view. I have seen more (and felt more), so I have different evidence from training.



Yeah there is a lot of video that produces evidence that the training isn't very good. There is a lot less video that supports it as good training. 

There are a lot of aspects in the training that contradict training with more video,anecdotal, expert, training and competition evidence.

You cant really see any resisted training. There is no real training against other styles there is no competition and experts who have done more than one method of training suggest it doesn't compare favorably.

There are some personal accounts that support the training and that is about it.

Which for me would be not enough data.

Plenty of things have the evidence of personal accounts. But do you really want to be the magnetic wristband of martial arts.


----------



## Charlemagne

Is anyone using WC in a serious way in fighting?  Because otherwise I am not getting the premise of the thread.  It has to be used, in order for people to be using it wrong.  I'm not trolling, I am legitimately interested in seeing serious examples of people pressure testing WC.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah there is a lot of video that produces evidence that the training isn't very good. There is a lot less video that supports it as good training.
> 
> There are a lot of aspects in the training that contradict training with more video,anecdotal, expert, training and competition evidence.
> 
> You cant really see any resisted training. There is no real training against other styles there is no competition and experts who have done more than one method of training suggest it doesn't compare favorably.
> 
> There are some personal accounts that support the training and that is about it.
> 
> Which for me would be not enough data.
> 
> Plenty of things have the evidence of personal accounts. But do you really want to be the magnetic wristband of martial arts.


You're now talking about a specific portion of Aikido, and speaking as if I've said it was combat effective. And the part you're talking about isn't what I do. And the comments about training methods are mostly irrelevant to what I do, since (as you know from previous discussions) I actually do train with people from other styles AND use resisted training. This is where you keep confusing the issues. If you read back, you'll see that I've actually said I think there's an issue with the kind of Aikido training you're referring to, where it's being used for combat/defensive training (in some places, it appears not to have that purpose, at all, but I don't think that's even nearly a majority).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're now talking about a specific portion of Aikido, and speaking as if I've said it was combat effective. And the part you're talking about isn't what I do. And the comments about training methods are mostly irrelevant to what I do, since (as you know from previous discussions) I actually do train with people from other styles AND use resisted training. This is where you keep confusing the issues. If you read back, you'll see that I've actually said I think there's an issue with the kind of Aikido training you're referring to, where it's being used for combat/defensive training (in some places, it appears not to have that purpose, at all, but I don't think that's even nearly a majority).



Not really. Because it is still really hard to get a guage of what you are doing.

So works in self defence. Trains with other styles and uses resisted without anything else still leaves this huge uncertanty factor.

Because it is the first one of these I could find. But a bit like this.


----------



## drop bear

Charlemagne said:


> Is anyone using WC in a serious way in fighting?  Because otherwise I am not getting the premise of the thread.  It has to be used, in order for people to be using it wrong.  I'm not trolling, I am legitimately interested in seeing serious examples of people pressure testing WC.



There is a guy in NZ who MMA's a bit.

But I am not sure it is not just MMA with a bit of bat crap crazy attached.






Speaking of running things past some experts.I did and got some confused looks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because it is still really hard to get a guage of what you are doing.
> 
> So works in self defence. Trains with other styles and uses resisted without anything else still leaves this huge uncertanty factor.
> 
> Because it is the first one of these I could find. But a bit like this.


I'm not sure what you mean by "it is still really hard to get a guage of what you are doing." Not so difficult, for those involved. I see no more of your training than you see of mine. I'm not sure why you feel there's something so secret and suspicious about what I do. You've been trying to poke holes in what you think my approach is for many months, never scoring on very many issues, because you really don't know what I do. You even keep poking at spots trying to make a point, ignoring or forgetting that we've discussed them before, and I've pointed out that I don't do what you keep saying I do. It's more than a little frustrating that you have a hard-on to prove I'm training something really poorly, when you clearly don't know what I'm training.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "it is still really hard to get a guage of what you are doing." Not so difficult, for those involved. I see no more of your training than you see of mine. I'm not sure why you feel there's something so secret and suspicious about what I do. You've been trying to poke holes in what you think my approach is for many months, never scoring on very many issues, because you really don't know what I do. You even keep poking at spots trying to make a point, ignoring or forgetting that we've discussed them before, and I've pointed out that I don't do what you keep saying I do. It's more than a little frustrating that you have a hard-on to prove I'm training something really poorly, when you clearly don't know what I'm training.



The point is that I clearly don't know what you are training. And that when I ask I constantly get redirected.

I don't just not see your training. I dont see anything. All hidden behind assurances.

Sheesh. Jump on facebook. You can see my training.
Whitsunday Martial Arts

Whenever I can show a guy from my club I do. Or if I know the guy. Or know their club. If I can possibly provide a source. I provide it.

But for some reason all of the Aikido training you suggest is done is hidden. And now you get upset that I keep asking.

And not just your club. This is all of Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The point is that I clearly don't know what you are training. And that when I ask I constantly get redirected.
> 
> I don't just not see your training. I dont see anything. All hidden behind assurances.
> 
> Sheesh. Jump on facebook. You can see my training.
> Whitsunday Martial Arts
> 
> Whenever I can show a guy from my club I do. Or if I know the guy. Or know their club. If I can possibly provide a source. I provide it.
> 
> But for some reason all of the Aikido training you suggest is done is hidden. And now you get upset that I keep asking.
> 
> And not just your club. This is all of Aikido.


I've answered many of your questions about my training. Are there videos? No. Why? I haven't ever gotten around to making any. I don't really owe you any. I'm not hiding anything "behind assurances". I just answer questions when they are asked, or when doubts are raised.

None of the training I speak of is hidden. I just don't have a driving need to create video. You have a real problem with it, as if I'm making some outrageous claims. I simply state what training I do. I don't understand why you're so hell-bent on finding something wrong with that. Your actions are WAY BEYOND bordering on harassment. Let it go. You don't like what you think I do. I don't owe you anything, so I don't really give a **** whether you like it or not. Am I being clearer, now?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've answered many of your questions about my training. Are there videos? No. Why? I haven't ever gotten around to making any. I don't really owe you any. I'm not hiding anything "behind assurances". I just answer questions when they are asked, or when doubts are raised.
> 
> None of the training I speak of is hidden. I just don't have a driving need to create video. You have a real problem with it, as if I'm making some outrageous claims. I simply state what training I do. I don't understand why you're so hell-bent on finding something wrong with that. Your actions are WAY BEYOND bordering on harassment. Let it go. You don't like what you think I do. I don't owe you anything, so I don't really give a **** whether you like it or not. Am I being clearer, now?



I think I have to learn to be more outraged more often. I am getting the short end of these discussions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think I have to learn to be more outraged more often. I am getting the short end of these discussions.


You never really admit that you're just going from thread to thread, looking for an excuse to try to impugn what I do. And when I explain you're talking about something I don't do, or provide reasons for that being part of the practice, or show what balances it, you either change your argument or just ignore the thing you asked for and keep insisting there's a major problem with this thing you don't understand. Find a different hobby - you're being a complete goober.


----------



## Charlemagne

drop bear said:


> There is a guy in NZ who MMA's a bit.
> 
> But I am not sure it is not just MMA with a bit of bat crap crazy attached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of running things past some experts.I did and got some confused looks.



You don't say. "Confused" would accurately describe my thoughts when watching that.  The only time they did anything that resembled the WC I have seen was towards the very end after the gloves came off.  Earlier, it seemed like they were taking turns getting punched with little discernible technique.


----------



## KPM

Well, I've got to go along with Drop Bear on this one.  In this day and age with so many videos being posted on-line and the ability to spontaneously pick up just about any smart phone and film something, when someone is making lots of claims about something but there is no video out there that backs it up.....it just leaves you wondering why.  It it leaves you wondering how true those claims are.   I've very seldom seen Aikido working against a non-compliant opponent in a sparring situation either. And take a certain WSLVT groupy for instance.  He has made all kinds of claims over time about how WSLVT is so different and superior to everyone else's Wing Chun but never seems to be able to find any video to back up his points.  They are all such wonderful fighters and have a long range game and all, but you can't find hardly any footage of them sparring with non-Wing Chun people. And what little you do find looks just like everyone else!  Go figure!


----------



## Nobody Important

A little OT, but Happy Father's Day all!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Well, I've got to go along with Drop Bear on this one.  In this day and age with so many videos being posted on-line and the ability to spontaneously pick up just about any smart phone and film something, when someone is making lots of claims about something but there is no video out there that backs it up.....it just leaves you wondering why.  It it leaves you wondering how true those claims are.   I've very seldom seen Aikido working against a non-compliant opponent in a sparring situation either. And take a certain WSLVT groupy for instance.  He has made all kinds of claims over time about how WSLVT is so different and superior to everyone else's Wing Chun but never seems to be able to find any video to back up his points.  They are all such wonderful fighters and have a long range game and all, but you can't find hardly any footage of them sparring with non-Wing Chun people. And what little you do find looks just like everyone else!  Go figure!


Except that I don't make a lot of claims. I answer questions about how I train. I spar, I use resistance, etc. That's not really an outrageous claim - many do that. I don't know how many in Aikido do - it's less usual there, for certain, but these are not uncommon practices in MA. When someone says, "we spar with gear", I don't think, "Prove it!" I simply accept that this is a reasonable practice that happens in some places, and I have no reason to seek proof.

If I were claiming something extraordinary, that would be worth chasing me around asking for proof, perhaps. The only real claim I can remember making is that there are people who have used what I do for self-defense, bouncing, and LEO work with success. That's not the kind of thing I can go out and produce video on - it either got caught on video (and I happen to know about it) or not. I can't change that. I think that's what bothers DB. I can't produce what he most wants, because I'm not aware of any video of it. Mind you, I'm not aware of any video of someone using Savate, Sambo, or BJJ specifically in SD. I can spot some techniques from some of those in videos (as I can spot some of the techniques I train), but I'm simply not aware of video of a single-art practitioner using those to defend themselves. 

I've actually made the point about the "aiki" side of Aikido not being often available (a slightly different term than "effective", for reasons I've addressed elsewhere) against a trained opponent. I've made the point that I think training only this side is an issue for that reason, and that NGA also has what I refer to as a "Judo" side. Those techniques can be easily found being used against a resisting opponent, since they actually come from Judo.

I'm not a champion of Aikido. I don't come on here to defend that group of arts. I come on here to discuss things, get and give information, etc. If someone doesn't like Aikido, I'm okay with that. But if they get a bug up their *** and start picking fights in unrelated threads because they don't think Aikido's training methods (an over-generalization that is its own problem) are effective, I don't really see why I should be responsible for their concerns.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> There is a guy in NZ who MMA's a bit ...But I am not sure it is not just MMA with a bit of* bat crap crazy *attached.
> ...Speaking of running things past some experts.I did and got some* confused looks.*



Bat-crap crazy? Confused looks? Did your _experts_ have any experience in Wing Chun? Because I got the feeling that this video was really directed at Wing Chun people. You know, explaining how his CSL brand of WC is applied in these drills. A lot of what he was explaining would naturally be confusing to most MMA people. Just sayin'.

As far as_ bat-crap crazy_ goes (or "BCC") ....my spidey sense for BCC only went of once, when I heard the name _Hendrick!_


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Bat-crap crazy? Confused looks? Did your _experts_ have any experience in Wing Chun? Because I got the feeling that this video was really directed at Wing Chun people. You know, explaining how his CSL brand of WC is applied in these drills. A lot of what he was explaining would naturally be confusing to most MMA people. Just sayin'.
> 
> As far as_ bat-crap crazy_ goes (or "BCC") ....my spidey sense for BCC only went of once, when I heard the name _Hendrick!_



MMA and  philipino. I ran it past him just to see if Alan had some sort of point.


----------



## drop bear

Charlemagne said:


> You don't say. "Confused" would accurately describe my thoughts when watching that.  The only time they did anything that resembled the WC I have seen was towards the very end after the gloves came off.  Earlier, it seemed like they were taking turns getting punched with little discernible technique.



I was trying to be nice. Full retard was the term used.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> MMA and  philipino. I ran it past him just to see if Alan had some sort of point.



Actually M_MA and Filipino_ (depending on the variety) is not so very distant from _MMA and Wing Chun,_ so maybe that wasn't a bad call. And as far as bat-crap crazy goes... a little insanity is OK with me. At least Alan Orr is one of the few WC guys trying to put his insanity to the test.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Actually M_MA and Filipino_ (depending on the variety) is not so very distant from _MMA and Wing Chun,_ so maybe that wasn't a bad call. And as far as bat-crap crazy goes... a little insanity is OK with me. At least Alan Orr is one of the few WC guys trying to put his insanity to the test.



Yeah it is just easy to assume correlation is causation. I think a lot of actual MMA goes on in that club. So the chun may be impacting or it may not.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Just a thought that I had recently cause of all the MMA vs tai chi hype and people comparing their art to MMA. Is it actually that these other arts are ****, or is it just that MMA fighters are just so good. Maybe we are not giving them enough credit. They are excellent fighters. MMA as a whole has evolved into something pretty impressive. Fighters these days transition easily between a lot of fighting contexts. Comparing any other martial artist to an MMA fighter is a pretty high yard stick to use.


----------



## KPM

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Just a thought that I had recently cause of all the MMA vs tai chi hype and people comparing their art to MMA. Is it actually that these other arts are ****, or is it just that MMA fighters are just so good. Maybe we are not giving them enough credit. They are excellent fighters. MMA as a whole has evolved into something pretty impressive. Fighters these days transition easily between a lot of fighting contexts. Comparing any other martial artist to an MMA fighter is a pretty high yard stick to use.



I'm not so sure that guy in that exchange with the "Tai Chi master" was such a great example of MMA.  I got  the impression that an amateur MMA guy with only 1 fight under his belt would have done just as well!  

It isn't that MMA fighters are so great.  Its that so many TCMA guys just plain suck at fighting.  Its not the style so much as it is the training method.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Just a thought that I had recently cause of all the MMA vs tai chi hype and people comparing their art to MMA. Is it actually that these other arts are ****, or is it just that MMA fighters are just so good. Maybe we are not giving them enough credit. They are excellent fighters. MMA as a whole has evolved into something pretty impressive. Fighters these days transition easily between a lot of fighting contexts. Comparing any other martial artist to an MMA fighter is a pretty high yard stick to use.



There is so much money expertise and resources thrown at the sport. It is like wondering why Australians are good at swimming. Or Brazilians at soccer.

A top line MMA gym wil have specialised expert coaches in different fields. Which they can do because being great at the sport will make you rich.

Coaches - Integrated MMA Brisbane Australia


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> There is so much money expertise and resources thrown at the sport.  ....being great at the sport will make you rich.



$10,000,000 to $25,000,000 a year _is rich_. Even a couple million a year is good. How rich do you consider rich? I didn't see anybody in MMA _even mentioned_ when I looked up top sports contracts.

List of largest sports contracts - Wikipedia

Now a few top MMA guys like Connor McGregor are doing really well, with McGregor having a career total of over $9,000,000 -- but top boxers had purses that big for a single championship fight _...way back in the 70s!!!_

UFC Career Fighter Earnings | MMA Manifesto

Considering how tough MMA is, and how short a fighters career might be, I'd say you'd have to do it for love, not money.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> You never really admit that you're just going from thread to thread, looking for an excuse to try to impugn what I do. And when I explain you're talking about something I don't do, or provide reasons for that being part of the practice, or show what balances it, you either change your argument or just ignore the thing you asked for and keep insisting there's a major problem with this thing you don't understand. Find a different hobby - you're being a complete goober.



I like and appreciate what you do, I like discussing it, too. But that's not why I quoted your post. You used the word _impugn_. Made my day, so love that word.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> $10,000,000 to $25,000,000 a year _is rich_. Even a couple million a year is good. How rich do you consider rich? I didn't see anybody in MMA _even mentioned_ when I looked up top sports contracts.
> 
> List of largest sports contracts - Wikipedia
> 
> Now a few top MMA guys like Connor McGregor are doing really well, with McGregor having a career total of over $9,000,000 -- but top boxers had purses that big for a single championship fight _...way back in the 70s!!!_
> 
> UFC Career Fighter Earnings | MMA Manifesto
> 
> Considering how tough MMA is, and how short a fighters career might be, I'd say you'd have to do it for love, not money.



The money provides opportunities. Nobody gets rich from the Olympics either.

Well except the IOC.

But yeah you have to be the top percent to earn from MMA.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

KPM said:


> I'm not so sure that guy in that exchange with the "Tai Chi master" was such a great example of MMA.  I got  the impression that an amateur MMA guy with only 1 fight under his belt would have done just as well!
> 
> It isn't that MMA fighters are so great.  Its that so many TCMA guys just plain suck at fighting.  Its not the style so much as it is the training method.



Well, yeah, the Tai Chi guy wasn't good. I guess the gist of what I am saying is that MMA fighters are really good.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Well, yeah, the Tai Chi guy wasn't good. I guess the gist of what I am saying is that MMA fighters are really good.



That "MMA" guy wasn't very good either. He was self-taught and missed every punch he threw until the guy tripped and he was able to punch him on the ground.

I wouldn't say that video was a good representation of MMA or TCMA, as both guys were fake.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Dont know the details, but from what I have heard the mma guy runs his own mma studio. Plus he won that fight pretty fast. You cant say that those punches werent effective. The tai chi guy didn't simply trip. He had punches raining in on him. While the tai chi guy is running back he cops one to the face and that's when he falls.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> Except that I don't make a lot of claims. I answer questions about how I train. I spar, I use resistance, etc. That's not really an outrageous claim - many do that. I don't know how many in Aikido do - it's less usual there, for certain, but these are not uncommon practices in MA. When someone says, "we spar with gear", I don't think, "Prove it!" I simply accept that this is a reasonable practice that happens in some places, and I have no reason to seek proof.
> 
> If I were claiming something extraordinary, that would be worth chasing me around asking for proof, perhaps. The only real claim I can remember making is that there are people who have used what I do for self-defense, bouncing, and LEO work with success. That's not the kind of thing I can go out and produce video on - it either got caught on video (and I happen to know about it) or not. I can't change that. I think that's what bothers DB. I can't produce what he most wants, because I'm not aware of any video of it. Mind you, I'm not aware of any video of someone using Savate, Sambo, or BJJ specifically in SD. I can spot some techniques from some of those in videos (as I can spot some of the techniques I train), but I'm simply not aware of video of a single-art practitioner using those to defend themselves.
> 
> I've actually made the point about the "aiki" side of Aikido not being often available (a slightly different term than "effective", for reasons I've addressed elsewhere) against a trained opponent. I've made the point that I think training only this side is an issue for that reason, and that NGA also has what I refer to as a "Judo" side. Those techniques can be easily found being used against a resisting opponent, since they actually come from Judo.
> 
> I'm not a champion of Aikido. I don't come on here to defend that group of arts. I come on here to discuss things, get and give information, etc. If someone doesn't like Aikido, I'm okay with that. But if they get a bug up their *** and start picking fights in unrelated threads because they don't think Aikido's training methods (an over-generalization that is its own problem) are effective, I don't really see why I should be responsible for their concerns.



Your last sentence reflects something I was just thinking: why is it a concern of theirs anyway? What I mean is if I train in a style that someone else thinks sucks, what's it to them? Just keep training the style you like and forget about me! Is there really such a big gaping hole in the lives of so many people that they have to bash what other people do to get any pleasure out of life?

If so, that's sad.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Dont know the details, but from what I have heard the mma guy runs his own mma studio. Plus he won that fight pretty fast. You cant say that those punches werent effective. The tai chi guy didn't simply trip. He had punches raining in on him. While the tai chi guy is running back he cops one to the face and that's when he falls.



I watched closely in slow-mo from various angles. None of the standing punches actually landed.

But, you're right. I can't say they weren't effective. Could have been the wind from his fists that blew him over.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Your last sentence reflects something I was just thinking: why is it a concern of theirs anyway? What I mean is if I train in a style that someone else thinks sucks, what's it to them? Just keep training the style you like and forget about me! Is there really such a big gaping hole in the lives of so many people that they have to bash what other people do to get any pleasure out of life?
> 
> If so, that's sad.


I can understand why some folks would feel interested. If an art claims to do something (like developing fighting ability), and does not, some will be interested from a "that's just not right" standpoint. Others will be interested because they feel students may be being deceived (purposely or accidentally). I can see both cases, and in egregious and obvious cases, I sometimes share their sentiments. I do think some folks invest too much of their own attention into cases that are neither so obvious nor so egregious, fretting over whether something is effective enough - a purely subjective measure. But it's their time and attention to spend as they wish, so I don't really have a problem with it most of the time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I watched closely in slow-mo from various angles. None of the standing punches actually landed.
> 
> But, you're right. I can't say they weren't effective. Could have been the wind from his fists that blew him over.


Actually, the punches were what caused him to backpedal, which led to him falling down. Effective, though none landed.


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> Your last sentence reflects something I was just thinking: why is it a concern of theirs anyway? What I mean is if I train in a style that someone else thinks sucks, what's it to them? Just keep training the style you like and forget about me! Is there really such a big gaping hole in the lives of so many people that they have to bash what other people do to get any pleasure out of life?
> 
> If so, that's sad.



Yeah. can't imagine what harm could be done.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I agree that there's a problem. And the evidence that exists supports the assertion. But I do know people who've trained in Aiki arts and put them to use as LEO and bouncers, as well as folks who've defended themselves with them. It'd be better if there was some video so we could learn from it, and ensure we know which parts of their training helped. But the lack of that video isn't entirely surprising. There's not a lot of video of any specific martial art being used in self-defense situations. Much of what we find could belong to any of a number of arts, and some appears to belong to no art, at all.


This is very true, at least for me.  I certainly use WC to enter at this point (it's what I currently study after all and I find the wedging/bridging of TWC to be superior to YA) but once I am "there" and am going for control/take down, at the point of transition I just go Aiki without thinking and it works and, tbh Aiki is present in the Judo I studied, the WC and Kali I study now because Aikido was not created in a vacuum.  Where Aiki fails is when you train in a way where you come to expect your opponent to just "go with the Aiki program".  That doesn't happen.

Now another issue is this.  First lack of "real" self defense video.  Next look at the % of people who actually study MA with a true self-defense/combative mindset.  That number is ridiculously small.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> This is very true, at least for me.  I certainly use WC to enter at this point (it's what I currently study after all and I find the wedging/bridging of TWC to be superior to YA) but once I am "there" and am going for control/take down, at the point of transition I just go Aiki without thinking and it works and, tbh Aiki is present in the Judo I studied, the WC and Kali I study now because Aikido was not created in a vacuum.  Where Aiki fails is when you train in a way where you come to expect your opponent to just "go with the Aiki program".  That doesn't happen.
> 
> Now another issue is this.  First lack of "real" self defense video.  Next look at the % of people who actually study MA with a true self-defense/combative mindset.  That number is ridiculously small.


I'll go a step further and say that there's an issue in expecting Aiki to be available. It's there a lot more than I would tend to use it (I've had some folks demonstrate that on me), but functionally, it's not always possible. Training to expect that severely limits the ability to recover when you miss the aiki opportunity (which I still do more than I like to admit). The push-pull and hard kuzushi in Judo (in my case, including the Judo-based portion of NGA) makes a nice counterpoint.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I'll go a step further and say that there's an issue in expecting Aiki to be available. It's there a lot more than I would tend to use it (I've had some folks demonstrate that on me), but functionally, it's not always possible. Training to expect that severely limits the ability to recover when you miss the aiki opportunity (which I still do more than I like to admit). The push-pull and hard kuzushi in Judo (in my case, including the Judo-based portion of NGA) makes a nice counterpoint.


That is a good point.  I think that I sometimes forget that Aiki doesn't = Aikido, especially Yoshinkan that still has a lot of Jujutsu left in it, and Judo of course came from Jujutsu as well. 

It's likely one of the reasons I didn't stick with Judo because I had to start from scratch and advance at the same pace as everyone else but I was saying to myself way to often, "but see, I sorta already know this."  Now of course, almost 2 decades later, I understand that my Judo Sensei, as he was definitely from a traditional mold, was trying to get the Jutsu philosphy out of my head that my Yoshinkan Sensei had.  The Judo Sensei wanted me to embrace Do before he advanced me to where I was technically.  My 20 something self however didn't get the difference between Jutsu and Do.  I was a soldier, becoming a LEO, the technical aspects were all that my mind was occupied with then...stupid kid.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> I watched closely in slow-mo from various angles. None of the standing punches actually landed.
> 
> But, you're right. I can't say they weren't effective. Could have been the wind from his fists that blew him over.



Yeah, the pressure from the punches and forward movement is driving the tai chi guy back. Watching in slow mo at the point where he falls over, it looks as if he could have got hit then. But can't be 100% sure.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

That blurry thing in front of the tai chi guys head is the mma guys arm and fist. Straght after that the tai chi guy turns his head sideways and falls down.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

I think this is the first punch that lands. The mma guy over commits one way but and has to turn back towards the tai chi guy. You see his left arm hanging low ready to swing. Looks like it lands.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> View attachment 20846That blurry thing in front of the tai chi guys head is the mma guys arm and fist. Straght after that the tai chi guy turns his head sideways and falls down.





Wing Chun Auckland said:


> View attachment 20847View attachment 20848I think this is the first punch that lands. The mma guy over commits one way but and has to turn back towards the tai chi guy. You see his left arm hanging low ready to swing. Looks like it lands.



Put this video at 0.25 speed at look at 1:37.

That punch you think knocks the guy down is looping over his arm and down toward his chest. It doesn't hit his face, and his head doesn't get turned as if hit by a punch. He's already turning his body before the punch is launched.

Better angles of the first punch you think lands are at 2:04 and 2:39. Again, watching in slow-mo, the guy's right arm comes up to shield his face. It was mostly blocked but may have made the guy's own hand hit himself in the forehead.

None of the other punches had a chance at landing. So, if making someone hit themselves counts, that's like half a punch out of the 5 that were thrown standing.


----------



## drop bear

It is not stylistic it is the mental games.

I think people focus on the wrong things. So as far as I can tell. People who train for the street consider street evidence as the most important evidence.


LFJ said:


> Put this video at 0.25 speed at look at 1:37.
> 
> That punch you think knocks the guy down is looping over his arm and down toward his chest. It doesn't hit his face, and his head doesn't get turned as if hit by a punch. He's already turning his body before the punch is launched.
> 
> Better angles of the first punch you think lands are at 2:04 and 2:39. Again, watching in slow-mo, the guy's right arm comes up to shield his face. It was mostly blocked but may have made the guy's own hand hit himself in the forehead.
> 
> None of the other punches had a chance at landing. So, if making someone hit themselves counts, that's like half a punch out of the 5 that were thrown standing.



That is some 9-11 conspiracy stuff right there mate.

You can hear them land.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> You can hear them land.



The ones on the ground that do land.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> The ones on the ground that do land.



Hey I looked at the clip in slo-mo like you suggested. The resolution is too poor for me to be certain. It did look to me like the so-called "tai-chi" guy caught one at 1:36  and possibly more before going to the ground, but honestly, it's hard to say for sure. You have a good eye for detail, I'll grant you that. 

Anyway, what's the point? As you say, it was a _horrible _display for both participants. The "MMA" guy looked incredibly sloppy and the "Tai-chi" guy was just a joke. If it proves anything, maybe it's that really crappy MMA or Kickboxing is still a lot more effective than crappy fantasy martial arts?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Anyway, what's the point? As you say, it was a _horrible _display for both participants. The "MMA" guy looked incredibly sloppy and the "Tai-chi" guy was just a joke. If it proves anything, maybe it's that really crappy MMA or Kickboxing is still a lot more effective than crappy fantasy martial arts?



The point was to say the self-taught MMA guy wasn't all that great either.

But, yeah, that's a point, too. This guy taught himself and still beat a guy who had a TCMA "master" and went on to create his own "Thunder Tai Chi" style.

I think it just comes down to the fighter mentality, though. Whether two unskilled guys or two highly skilled guys, the one with the stronger fighter mentality is going to smash the other most times.

Skill or style doesn't really mean much if you don't have it in you to crush someone for real. In this match, only one guy had it, and that's what decided the outcome before it even kicked off.


----------



## Charlemagne

It's very hard to know which systems actually have the potential to work and which do not due to the manner in which they are trained.  One of the things I like about Matt Thornton of Straight Blast Gym fame is his approach in this regard.  He calls it the "i-method".


Introduction
Isolation (with progressive levels of resistance)
Integration 

While I cannot say that I like or agree with everything he says, I believe this method, or something similar, would go a long way towards clearing the air in modern martial arts.  He discusses the process here, and it is probably worth a listen.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The ones on the ground that do land.



And the one that dropped the guy.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> And the one that dropped the guy.



There wasn't one.


----------



## Charlemagne

There are two WC threads that are pretty similar in regards to topic going on right now.  I posted a question there that I would be interested in getting some evidence on.  I don't want to derail this particular thread, but if anyone has video, please feel free to share it there.  Cheers!

What was Wing Chun designed for?


----------



## wingchun100

So when and where will the first wing chun tournament be?


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> When I read comments like this I suspect that the author either has _limited experience in WC_, or has a _limited notion of what WC entails_. Not to be insulting, since you may be a very effective martial artist. But WC is much more than a "condiment", and if viewed that way will probably not function well. It is not a grab-bag of infighting tools to be bolted onto a generic, non-WC base!
> 
> On the other extreme, you will find many WC "believers" who will insist that WC/VT is all you need!!! That is an equally narrow and flawed perspective IMO.
> 
> My _personal _belief is that VT/WC is a very well _integrated system of stand-up close-range fighting_ that can be very effective. To be a _complete martial art,_ however, you also need to have a _long range game_ and a good _grappling game_. That is to say a more _JKD-like frame of mind_. That's leaving aside the issue of bladed weapons and firearms which is often how people approach self-defense where I live.
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's be brutally honest as to why VT/WC is not more successful in fighting and or competition: I'd say it boils down to_ who trains it, how it's trained, and the lack of competitive testing. _Let's look at each of these factors:
> 
> _First,_ the majority of people training VT/WC are like _me_ -- basically hobbyists who train a few days a week, are not all that talented, and have no interest in hard-core fighting.
> 
> _Second, _most WC/VT classes, _just like mine,_ train a lot of drills, a lot of chi-sau, and far too little sparring to be really effective. Remember that our clientele is mostly older professionals who really don't want to get beat up, and they are being taught by _me _--a guy in his sixties who hasn't been a fight since he was in his twenties!
> 
> _Third, _The absence of _a competitive arena specific to VT/WT for testing,_ improving and evolving the art regardless of lineage and faith-based beliefs about how our techniques "should" be done based on ideas rooted in the past.
> 
> Now many will say that such a venue _already exists _in the form of MMA or Sanda. But MMA has become it's own thing these days, and really isn't the ideal framework for testing individual component arts. Thats why Muay Thai, BJJ, Boxing, and so forth, still have their _own_ competitive formats. VT/WT absolutely needs that too as _one component_ of our training system along with the other training components we already have.
> 
> And we need _fewer grandmasters and more good coaches _like Alan Orr and his kind to dissect WC/VT and apply it to an MMA format as well. It may not look like traditional VT/WC but he makes it work, and does a pretty fair job of explaining how his fighters are incorporating WC concepts into their MMA, _however it looks._ That's a damned good start IMO.


Excellent post.


----------



## Steve

Nobody Important said:


> No, I agree, successful self defense is far more important than competition. I was simply trying to illustrate the point about how many Wing Chun people believe the method to be nearly infallible, yet when put to the test in competition it doesn't fair well against other trained combatants. As an art, the theorectical makeup may support such a narrative but the training and application of most teaching doesn't. This, IMO, is why it fails and gets such a bad rap. Basically it boils down to delusioned braggerts and fanboys who have no clue of actual fighting misrepresenting an art.


It's impossible to know whether the martial artist was better able to defend himself because of his training.  Presuming that the outcome of any self defense encounter would have ended differently whether a person has martial arts training or not is faulty logic.  Impossible to know either way, and statistically, your odds of being physically accosted are low, and if you are attacked, your chances of surviving are very high, regardless of your training.  Your instincts, though, are pointing you in the right direction regarding competition.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> So when and where will the first wing chun tournament be?


I would definitely attend as a spectator.


----------



## moonhill99

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?



First  who is saying it? That Wing Chun does not work? Internet trolls or the experts?

Where are the youtube videos saying it does not work? Not your Wing vs xx but wing chun used in self defense?

Show me the body cameras, street cameras and cell phone used on the street where it does not work.

Where are the testings and who doing the testings?

Second who are these wing chun fighters? Have they got punched many times? Or is this their first time getting punched?

They never got into fight before? All calm and relax in class with little body contact?

To these questions are answered how can this thread be taken into more light?


----------



## moonhill99

I also get feeling there are lot of internet trolls and people starting to believe them.

Now if you are trying to combined boxing and Wing Chun together the two don't go good because Wing Chun has different footwork and stance than boxing.

Also the way the punch is generated and the way you form the fist and strike is also different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

moonhill99 said:


> First  who is saying it? That Wing Chun does not work? Internet trolls or the experts?
> 
> Where are the youtube videos saying it does not work? Not your Wing vs xx but wing chun used in self defense?
> 
> Show me the body cameras, street cameras and cell phone used on the street where it does not work.
> 
> Where are the testings and who doing the testings?
> 
> Second who are these wing chun fighters? Have they got punched many times? Or is this their first time getting punched?
> 
> They never got into fight before? All calm and relax in class with little body contact?
> 
> To these questions are answered how can this thread be taken into more light?


"Nobody Important" is actually the person's username on MT.


----------



## Martial D

moonhill99 said:


> I also get feeling there are lot of internet trolls and people starting to believe them.
> 
> Now if you are trying to combined boxing and Wing Chun together the two don't go good because Wing Chun has different footwork and stance than boxing.
> 
> Also the way the punch is generated and the way you form the fist and strike is also different.


I've been doing WC since the 90s, and full contact cross training/sparring in WB, MT, BJJ, JKD, Arnis and a grab bag of whatever I could learn from whoever wherever for that same amount of time, and I certainly wouldn't do 'pure' wc in a sparring/combat situation. I like my teeth too much.


----------



## geezer

moonhill99 said:


> First  who is saying it? That Wing Chun does not work? Internet trolls or the experts?
> 
> ...Where are the youtube videos saying it does not work? Not your Wing vs xx but wing chun used in self defense?



*Moonhill,* this question I quoted was posed by the forum member *"Nobody Important"*, so he would have to weigh in to give you a definitive answer. Still, when he referred to WC "failing miserably" when put to the_* test*, _I took it that he was referring to _matches or competition_ such as MMA, Sanda, or style vs. style bouts, not unrecorded self-defense applications on the street.

While WC/VT/WT may be very effective when you are jumped in some dark ally or parking lot, that remains unknowable and unquantifiable, except as regards one' _personal experience._ Testimonials and stories of such experiences are entirely subjective and don't provide the kind objective evidence that today's skeptical audience demands.

By "testing" most people refer to some kind of competition with resisting opponents, oft repeated, and with controlled variables so that the results can be quantified and analyzed. Many feel that though imperfect, this is the best available way to objectively test efficacy. Consider the ring as a sort of petri dish to lab-test martial arts.

Of course, as you pointed out, such controlled lab tests cannot fully duplicate field results. But it's the best we can do if we want to apply the scientific method. Or we could just go along with untested theories and personal testimonials.


----------



## geezer

moonhill99 said:


> I also get feeling there are* lot of internet trolls* and people starting to believe them.
> 
> Now if you are trying to combined boxing and Wing Chun together the two don't go good because Wing Chun has different footwork and stance than boxing.
> 
> Also the way the punch is generated and the way you form the fist and strike is also different.



I don't pay attention to the hoards of internet trolls, including the occasional one popping up on this foraum, so I can't speak to that. However, I do agree with your statement about the difficulty of integrating WC/VT and modern boxing. Different structure, stance, steps, power generation ...in short, _not_ easily combined with advantageous results.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> However, I do agree with your statement about the difficulty of integrating WC/VT and modern boxing. Different structure, stance, steps, power generation ...in short, _not_ easily combined with advantageous results.



And perhaps most importantly, very different strategy and tactics. Like oil and water.

You really have to gut one or the other to make something functional.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> *Moonhill,* this question I quoted was posed by the forum member *"Nobody Important"*, so he would have to weigh in to give you a definitive answer. Still, when he referred to WC "failing miserably" when put to the_* test*, _I took it that he was referring to _matches or competition_ such as MMA, Sanda, or style vs. style bouts, not unrecorded self-defense applications on the street.
> 
> While WC/VT/WT may be very effective when you are jumped in some dark ally or parking lot, that remains unknowable and unquantifiable, except as regards one' _personal experience._ Testimonials and stories of such experiences are entirely subjective and don't provide the kind objective evidence that today's skeptical audience demands.
> 
> By "testing" most people refer to some kind of competition with resisting opponents, oft repeated, and with controlled variables so that the results can be quantified and analyzed. Many feel that though imperfect, this is the best available way to objectively test efficacy. Consider the ring as a sort of petri dish to lab-test martial arts.
> 
> Of course, as you pointed out, such controlled lab tests cannot fully duplicate field results. But it's the best we can do if we want to apply the scientific method. Or we could just go along with untested theories and personal testimonials.



Yeah. Wing chun do really well in all the fights we can't see.

I had a mate like that. Decimated in the fights nobody saw.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I don't pay attention to the hoards of internet trolls, including the occasional one popping up on this foraum, so I can't speak to that. However, I do agree with your statement about the difficulty of integrating WC/VT and modern boxing. Different structure, stance, steps, power generation ...in short, _not_ easily combined with advantageous results.



Have you looked at amateur boxing?


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> Have you *looked* at amateur boxing?



Sure, ... our group rents space at a boxing gym. It's an awesome art, but the foundation is so different from what we do that I wouldn't begin to try integrating the two. If others want to I'll sit back and watch with an open mind. As far as _learning _boxing, well I'll be 62 next month, and if I take up anything new it will be something a good deal more gentle. Something like a special  BJJ class for geezers.


----------



## anerlich

moonhill99 said:


> I also get feeling there are lot of internet trolls and people starting to believe them.



You don't say.


----------



## Way_of_the_Crane

Wing Chun is not a sport. This is why the art is being used wrong. Designed to be simple, quick, and to destroy asap. Videos primary have students or Sifu's with gloves on (this alone impacts our Chi sau training). They are in a ring with a ref. A handful of our moves would be considered illegal in competitions. Therefore, with these statements, yes the ART is being used wrong, people use it as a sport. 
My intention is not to offend anyone, Kung Fu gets a bad reputation because of individuals trying to use it in the ring. Stay at home, and use it for self realization, self improvement, and self defense.


----------



## jobo

Way_of_the_Crane said:


> Wing Chun is not a sport. This is why the art is being used wrong. Designed to be simple, quick, and to destroy asap. Videos primary have students or Sifu's with gloves on (this alone impacts our Chi sau training). They are in a ring with a ref. A handful of our moves would be considered illegal in competitions. Therefore, with these statements, yes the ART is being used wrong, people use it as a sport.
> My intention is not to offend anyone, Kung Fu gets a bad reputation because of individuals trying to use it in the ring. Stay at home, and use it for self realization, self improvement, and self defense.


but its only wing chun and not kung fu in general that has a bad rep


----------



## anerlich

jobo said:


> but its only wing chun and not kung fu in general that has a bad rep



No, most kung fu has a bad rep. That taiji guy that lost the fight in China recently didn't exactly help matters. The (some) Chinese took it as an affront to their entire martial/cultural heritage.


----------



## Way_of_the_Crane

I agree with anerlich. The general term of Kung Fu to the Western world of fighting has a bad rep. Most do not understand when/way the styles are used, or the dedication and commitment to it. People try to bring any style to the ring and it doesn't really work that way. I have seen the Shaolin monk that is rather impressive, showing the world what Kung Fu can do. With all due respect, if you can name a Kung Fu that MMA or UFC entertainers consistently use, I will be impressed. What comes to mind is Joe Rogan telling the world what a joke most eastern styles are. So not just Wing Chun, Kung Fu in general.


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> *Moonhill,* this question I quoted was posed by the forum member *"Nobody Important"*, so he would have to weigh in to give you a definitive answer. Still, when he referred to WC "failing miserably" when put to the_* test*, _I took it that he was referring to _matches or competition_ such as MMA, Sanda, or style vs. style bouts, not unrecorded self-defense applications on the street.
> 
> While WC/VT/WT may be very effective when you are jumped in some dark ally or parking lot, that remains unknowable and unquantifiable, except as regards one' _personal experience._ Testimonials and stories of such experiences are entirely subjective and don't provide the kind objective evidence that today's skeptical audience demands.
> 
> By "testing" most people refer to some kind of competition with resisting opponents, oft repeated, and with controlled variables so that the results can be quantified and analyzed. Many feel that though imperfect, this is the best available way to objectively test efficacy. Consider the ring as a sort of petri dish to lab-test martial arts.
> 
> Of course, as you pointed out, such controlled lab tests cannot fully duplicate field results. But it's the best we can do if we want to apply the scientific method. Or we could just go along with untested theories and personal testimonials.



Or we could start wearing button cams and purposely aggravating the college jocks getting wasted and belligerent in bars.


----------



## drop bear

Way_of_the_Crane said:


> I agree with anerlich. The general term of Kung Fu to the Western world of fighting has a bad rep. Most do not understand when/way the styles are used, or the dedication and commitment to it. People try to bring any style to the ring and it doesn't really work that way. I have seen the Shaolin monk that is rather impressive, showing the world what Kung Fu can do. With all due respect, if you can name a Kung Fu that MMA or UFC entertainers consistently use, I will be impressed. What comes to mind is Joe Rogan telling the world what a joke most eastern styles are. So not just Wing Chun, Kung Fu in general.


Sanda.





People who can use their style to fight. Can use their style to fight. People who can't can't.





It is not all that complicated. It is just sometimes hard to acknowledge.


----------



## wingchun100

Way_of_the_Crane said:


> Wing Chun is not a sport. This is why the art is being used wrong. Designed to be simple, quick, and to destroy asap. Videos primary have students or Sifu's with gloves on (this alone impacts our Chi sau training). They are in a ring with a ref. A handful of our moves would be considered illegal in competitions. Therefore, with these statements, yes the ART is being used wrong, people use it as a sport.
> My intention is not to offend anyone, Kung Fu gets a bad reputation because of individuals trying to use it in the ring. Stay at home, and use it for self realization, self improvement, and self defense.



If you know the rules ahead of time, then you can train in a way that excludes the illegal techniques.

Not for nothing, but Wing Chun does not HAVE to be used in a deadly way. I mean, if my brother-in-law was drunk at a wedding, I would use my skills to handle him differently than I would some thug on the street.


----------



## jobo

anerlich said:


> No, most kung fu has a bad rep. That taiji guy that lost the fight in China recently didn't exactly help matters. The (some) Chinese took it as an affront to their entire martial/cultural heritage.


is that the one were the small old guy was beaten up by the big young MMA guy? I've made note before that tma lives in a fantasy world of out of condition middle aged men beating up young fit men, its unlikely to happen if its just some thug on the street, its just not going to happen at all if the young guy is good at mma.

there is nothing at all wrong with kung fu, if you are realistic about who you can fight.based on your age and physical condition

put some 26yo fit gung fu guy of the same weight up against him and there would at least be a,contest.


----------



## TMA17

Juany118 said:


> See this is a problem I think, the idea it should look a particular way.  I posted a video elsewhere of Jerry Devone in a fight where he knocked a guy out a couple times.  Was it Donnie Yen movie perfect?  Nope.  Could you see the Wing Chun in what he did though?  Yes.  Maybe this is just me but I have always looked at the way we train WC as being about teaching techniques to understand the principles with which you fight.  If my bil or bong isnt at a perfect angle but I adhere to the principles I am still using WC.  This may also come from the way Sifu Keith Mazza teaches (as he is the Sifu of my Sifu's).  At one seminar he took a picture perfect stance, and said "this is how we train but this isn't how anyone is going to fight irl.  The picture perfect man and wu sau are there to program you to know/protect your center and to stay relaxed vs tense with clenched fists.
> 
> I have always found it odd how WC is called a conceptual martial art, yet at the same time people expect it to have that picture perfect appearance. /shrug



I believe Sifu Mazza is correct.


----------



## TMA17

Juany118 said:


> See this is a problem I think, the idea it should look a particular way.  I posted a video elsewhere of Jerry Devone in a fight where he knocked a guy out a couple times.  Was it Donnie Yen movie perfect?  Nope.  Could you see the Wing Chun in what he did though?  Yes.  Maybe this is just me but I have always looked at the way we train WC as being about teaching techniques to understand the principles with which you fight.  If my bil or bong isnt at a perfect angle but I adhere to the principles I am still using WC.  This may also come from the way Sifu Keith Mazza teaches (as he is the Sifu of my Sifu's).  At one seminar he took a picture perfect stance, and said "this is how we train but this isn't how anyone is going to fight irl.  The picture perfect man and wu sau are there to program you to know/protect your center and to stay relaxed vs tense with clenched fists.
> 
> I have always found it odd how WC is called a conceptual martial art, yet at the same time people expect it to have that picture perfect appearance. /shrug



Great point about WC being a conceptual martial art.  Is it important if your bong sao is 3"'s different from where it's supposed to be?  I don't think so. The foundation and concepts behind WC are IMO very sound and good.  How one uses it will vary and that is ok.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


I agree to a point.  Fighting with kung fu doesn't look like the form, but takes the shape of the form. The form is like a perfect circle, while fighting looks like an imperfect circle.  Everyone in here can draw a circle while walking, and none of the circles will be perfect, but anyone can recognize what we were trying to draw.  Kung fu is like that.  Fighting is like walking. How we walk changes with the terrain and affects how the circle looks and how we try to apply our method of drawing a circle.  

Some people fight using Wing Chun form and not Wing Chun shape.  I think this something that's common in all martial arts except for grappling systems.


----------



## FighterTwister

geezer said:


> On another thread, Nobody Important posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test.
> 
> *Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting,*
> 
> but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?






I'm going to take a chance and comment, so here I go..........

I agree with the part that I put in bold to highlight the point you are making here.

What is Wing Chun and how to use it in real application...............................

As you know Wing Chun is about the center-line theory protecting your body as the center mass however you are combining foot work like shifting movement, step to left or right  or shuffling in and also the use of front kicks and other types of kicks to gain control or distance or counter or upset your opponents approach of attack  where you attack the closest point of interest it might be a right lead hand then follow in to the right side body as an example or kicking the thighs so on.

As much as it is covering the triangle path its also under Chinese fighting methods taught its fighting in a circle and half circle pattern and the straight blast approach all are correct methods when the opportunity or way of entering and escaping presents its self.







Wing Chun is a simple method of fighting to reduce the gap in close quarter fighting but there is another way of thinking taken from the Shaolin fighting principles of when to expand and contract and closing the gap when the right opportunity presents it self.

Its as much as getting in close to control the fight in trapping range but taking the bite out of the attack using proper methods of covering all points of attack and counter strategy.

For example parry and wrap around one arm knee to the chest or elbow to the face then move fast over the next arm so on, if you get the point I'm making. 

I hope I'm making some sense I'm no expert writer but most don't know how to translate what is taught in training from how to apply fighting application and poorly represent Wing Chun and others Martial arts as whole.

The only guy that I currently see doing things the way I see it to be done is Master Wongs methods of street fight defense using Wing Chun.

I was taught traditional Wing Chun but understood thats the form in the learning process and real life expression is more aggressive and strategic in application and its more about the person expressing it then the art itself.

I also took to learning about the approach to fighting when others simply don't study it, but just apply to learning the martial art style not the application of fighting.

Its why I posted this............ *** UFC - THE ART OF THE FIGHT ***   ........but that thread was lost also in not understanding the concept of fighting and I also did not explain it properly either so read posts #1, 3, 11

But Watch Master Wong here.......



















Its about applying what your learn not applying the form, does that make any sense, because the form is the process of learning.

Not like this...................






As for the above video just two guys punching each other senseless is not skilled or trained individuals expressing martial arts showing any awareness of good fighting skills but just a brutal way of attacking each other looking for a knock out.  They are not relaxed but both very tense and overly focused on the fear of getting hit rather than managing distance not get hit using fakes and entry points of attack as an example.

its about correct understanding.......... "Think Street - Train Sport"!






So by training like this it could very well save your life if ever confronted with the horrid situation of attacking and defending yourself in a real confrontation that can happen anywhere anytime in an instance.

Also what contributes to poor performance in realistic expression of fighting is that people panic instead of keeping calm relaxed and breathing or thinking, reading movement patterns as well as learning in the fight.  You do this by moving around don't just walk into it allot depends on the surroundings but evading is also the tactical advantage of watching the opponent.

Its really a good discussion point and a science to learn and express it in sparring.

How Martial arts is commonly taught nowadays is more of a hobby sport not so much focused on the "Art of Fighting" which sadly completely misses the mark when its needed in reality for defensive purposes and people with good intent get hurt badly, because they have not learned to translate those skill sets over to real practical experience and you see this allot on YouTubes and people make claims that the martial art is at fault thats not entirely true or the whole account of the problem or analysis.

Its about weighing in the whole account and balances so to speak not just focusing on one side.

Well I hope I have added something to the thread for discussion keeping it concise and to the point I believe. I will always love martial arts for its many forms styles ways of thinking just the knowledge you get its fascinating how the body can do all these things.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?




Well as far as I am taught in TWC, including the head of the US branch, WC as is said is NOT supposed to look like the forms while fighting.  The forms teach, in essence, the principles and provide a framework which is then used in fighting.


----------



## TMA17

Juany118 said:


> Well as far as I am taught in TWC, including the head of the US branch, WC as is said is NOT supposed to look like the forms while fighting.  The forms teach, in essence, the principles and provide a framework which is then used in fighting.



I have heard the same thing from several WC people, one of which is very well known and respected.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Well as far as I am taught in TWC, including the head of the US branch, WC as is said is NOT supposed to look like the forms while fighting.  The forms teach, in essence, the principles and provide a framework which is then used in fighting.


If this doesn't make sense, let me know, Juany. It's not meant to be an implied condemnation - I'm expecting there's an answer to this if I ask it clearly enough.

What is the principle of progression from the forms to how it ends up in application? If it doesn't look like the forms, then how does someone in TWC know how to apply the principles from the forms?


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> What is the principle of progression from the forms to how it ends up in application? If it doesn't look like the forms, then how does someone in TWC know how to apply the principles from the forms?



That is a great question.  Of course fighting is not going to look EXACTLY like the forms!  But if I see a guy sparring, shouldn't I be able to recognize that he is doing TWC?  Shouldn't it look enough like TWC to be recognizable?  Wouldn't applying the principles taught in the forms using the techniques taught in the forms just naturally look like TWC?  And if not, then why not?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> That is a great question.  Of course fighting is not going to look EXACTLY like the forms!  But if I see a guy sparring, shouldn't I be able to recognize that he is doing TWC?  Shouldn't it look enough like TWC to be recognizable?  Wouldn't applying the principles taught in the forms using the techniques taught in the forms just naturally look like TWC?  And if not, then why not?


Well, following Juany's statement, just because it doesn't look like the forms, that doesn't mean it doesn't look like TWC. There are positions in NGA forms that I teach students why they aren't wise with an attacker (resisting opponent). The technique still ends up looking like NGA, but not like that NGA form.


----------



## TMA17

My .02.  I'm not really qualified to answer this but from what I've read and learned so far I'd say the bulk of it would look like WC and recognizable.  For example, the kicks, blocks and defending/simultaneous attacking.  What may look different is the stance.  More of the 45 degree angle.  No/less of the standing upright and chain punching into the guy.  (seems to be something I see a lot of WC guys do and I was told from the beginning that is a common mistake.).  Faster more fluid movement from better more well trained WC people.  I think what you see with Phillips/Wong/Orr/Chan is more what it would look like.

This book was referred to me for WC.  I have not read it but it's related to this topic.

Look Beyond the Pointing Finger: The Combat Philosophy of Wong Shun Leung


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> If this doesn't make sense, let me know, Juany. It's not meant to be an implied condemnation - I'm expecting there's an answer to this if I ask it clearly enough.
> 
> What is the principle of progression from the forms to how it ends up in application? If it doesn't look like the forms, then how does someone in TWC know how to apply the principles from the forms?



Sorry this will be a little long.

*This clearly wont be an exhaustive list but it will provide the basics.*
1. SLT is the "alphabet." You are learning the importance of structure, the centerline, how to all ways maintain forwarding energy (while being relaxed), focus on the elbow and the basic hand and arm techniques that will be honed into skills eventually.

2. TWC has "advanced SLT" which is basically what I see as a good mid step to CK in that it introduces some basic foot work but beyond that is largely reinforcing the above.  I believe TWC is the only WC lineage with such a "mid step" form

3. CK introduces kicking, the bulk of the footwork and how to generate power by orchestrating multiple muscles into such an action.  In short it is increasingly imparting the concepts of efficiency that are hammered at with these concepts especially.  Also it builds upon SLT in that where in SLT you most often move the left side and then the right side of your body, in CK you are far more often moving both sides at once as you would in a real fight.

*Note:*  Yip Man said that a student who had been trained properly, up and to including, CK should be a competent fighter.

4. BJ builds even further upon the footwork and power generation of CK but then also includes the idea that you may lose control of the centerline and/or your structure and how one may recover this. 

*How does one know how to apply it if it doesn't "look" like the form?* 

Look at the main principles being taught.  Control of you centerline and structure first.  These are things you can in essence "feel".  If your feet aren't in the perfect position you can still "feel" if your weight is distributed properly and adjust, either the body or the feet as the situation dictates.  The same goes for other things.  Perhaps I take my elbows a bit off centerline because I have someone throwing a lot of round attacks on me.  I still have my center covered by portions of my arms and can close my guard quickly if needed, but I changed my guard ever so slightly to something the doesn't "look" WC but is still maintaining the centerline principle in an efficient fashion. 

The same may go with attacks.  Now "hook" punches are not commonly see in WC, but they are taught (in my experience) so you may have a WC practitioner say that I didn't do a WC punch, however they way I was taught to throw such a punch "feel" WC to me.  It is always converging on the centerline and my structure is maintained because I use my entire body, including proper footwork, to power the punch.  To those who haven't used a hook punch (we call it a buffalo punch in my school) think of the structural strength of a _bong sau, _then put power behind it with proper coordination for a attack.  It's kinda like the inverse of when you are doing a straight punch that gets intercepted and now you are doing a _tan sau_

What did I mean by the last?  Many people who know nothing of TWC, if they saw our forms blind, would think it is an art "similar" to WC but not WC.  Also in a real fight am I going to be overly concerned about having that hand perfectly open for a tan sau or a bong sau?  No, I am going to defend, if I was in the midst of striking that tan may have a fist on the end of it.  If I am under pressure from a poser who thinks he should be in the UFC and thus is head hunting like an SOB, I am probably going to raise my guard a little bit.  You are fighting an independent being, as such you can not rely on being in absolute control, you must learn to flow with your opponent as needed.  When this happens, you can't be worried about "looking" WC.  Yes you should maintain the principles but these principles are based in physics.  I can maintain proper structure and keep my mass behind my attacks and defenses without constantly maintaining the picture perfect upright posture.  I do A LOT of sinking (not bending over) defensively when my brother-in-law is throwing round kicks at my head, as an example.  To become trapped in the forms and to put them on as high a pedestal as the principles, at least imo, invites you into traps.

Now this isn't to say you should take this attitude out of the gate, you certainly should NOT as a student.  You have to VERY certain that you can instinctively put the principles into practice.  Think of it like a Jazz Musician.  They don't automatically start improvising like this






you start with sheet music, learn the use of flow, chord progression and rhythm and THEN when you have those principles down instinctively, you walk up to the stranger on the street and join in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Sorry this will be a little long.
> 
> *This clearly wont be an exhaustive list but it will provide the basics.*
> 1. SLT is the "alphabet." You are learning the importance of structure, the centerline, how to all ways maintain forwarding energy (while being relaxed), focus on the elbow and the basic hand and arm techniques that will be honed into skills eventually.
> 
> 2. TWC has "advanced SLT" which is basically what I see as a good mid step to CK in that it introduces some basic foot work but beyond that is largely reinforcing the above.  I believe TWC is the only WC lineage with such a "mid step" form
> 
> 3. CK introduces kicking, the bulk of the footwork and how to generate power by orchestrating multiple muscles into such an action.  In short it is increasingly imparting the concepts of efficiency that are hammered at with these concepts especially.  Also it builds upon SLT in that where in SLT you most often move the left side and then the right side of your body, in CK you are far more often moving both sides at once as you would in a real fight.
> 
> *Note:*  Yip Man said that a student who had been trained properly, up and to including, CK should be a competent fighter.
> 
> 4. BJ builds even further upon the footwork and power generation of CK but then also includes the idea that you may lose control of the centerline and/or your structure and how one may recover this.
> 
> *How does one know how to apply it if it doesn't "look" like the form?*
> 
> Look at the main principles being taught.  Control of you centerline and structure first.  These are things you can in essence "feel".  If your feet aren't in the perfect position you can still "feel" if your weight is distributed properly and adjust, either the body or the feet as the situation dictates.  The same goes for other things.  Perhaps I take my elbows a bit off centerline because I have someone throwing a lot of round attacks on me.  I still have my center covered by portions of my arms and can close my guard quickly if needed, but I changed my guard ever so slightly to something the doesn't "look" WC but is still maintaining the centerline principle in an efficient fashion.
> 
> The same may go with attacks.  Now "hook" punches are not commonly see in WC, but they are taught (in my experience) so you may have a WC practitioner say that I didn't do a WC punch, however they way I was taught to throw such a punch "feel" WC to me.  It is always converging on the centerline and my structure is maintained because I use my entire body, including proper footwork, to power the punch.  To those who haven't used a hook punch (we call it a buffalo punch in my school) think of the structural strength of a _bong sau, _then put power behind it with proper coordination for a attack.  It's kinda like the inverse of when you are doing a straight punch that gets intercepted and now you are doing a _tan sau_
> 
> What did I mean by the last?  Many people who know nothing of TWC, if they saw our forms blind, would think it is an art "similar" to WC but not WC.  Also in a real fight am I going to be overly concerned about having that hand perfectly open for a tan sau or a bong sau?  No, I am going to defend, if I was in the midst of striking that tan may have a fist on the end of it.  If I am under pressure from a poser who thinks he should be in the UFC and thus is head hunting like an SOB, I am probably going to raise my guard a little bit.  You are fighting an independent being, as such you can not rely on being in absolute control, you must learn to flow with your opponent as needed.  When this happens, you can't be worried about "looking" WC.  Yes you should maintain the principles but these principles are based in physics.  I can maintain proper structure and keep my mass behind my attacks and defenses without constantly maintaining the picture perfect upright posture.  I do A LOT of sinking (not bending over) defensively when my brother-in-law is throwing round kicks at my head, as an example.  To become trapped in the forms and to put them on as high a pedestal as the principles, at least imo, invites you into traps.
> 
> Now this isn't to say you should take this attitude out of the gate, you certainly should NOT as a student.  You have to VERY certain that you can instinctively put the principles into practice.  Think of it like a Jazz Musician.  They don't automatically start improvising like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you start with sheet music, learn the use of flow, chord progression and rhythm and THEN when you have those principles down instinctively, you walk up to the stranger on the street and join in.


Thanks!


----------



## Anarax

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?



What exactly do you mean put to the test? If you're referring to when an out of shape "Instructor" was defeated in a MMA competition, then I can see what you mean. However; Wing Chun wasn't designed for competition, it was designed for everyday life. Wing Chun overall has declined in quality over the years, this is by in large due to it's increase in popularity. When you see good Wing Chun it's truly a site to behold though. You can go on youtube and find countless awful chi sao videos, but when you find a good one it's refreshing and shows you what Wing Chun truly is. It's not the system itself that has failed, but a lot of terrible instructors that have watered it down. I have two years of Wing Chun experience under two different instructors.


----------



## geezer

Anarax said:


> What exactly do you mean *put to the test? *



For a clearer answer, you'd have to ask forum member_ Nobody Important _(the guy I was quoting)_. 
_
Anyway, thanks for you comments!


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> What exactly do you mean put to the test? If you're referring to when an out of shape "Instructor" was defeated in a MMA competition, then I can see what you mean. However; Wing Chun wasn't designed for competition, it was designed for everyday life. Wing Chun overall has declined in quality over the years, this is by in large due to it's increase in popularity. When you see good Wing Chun it's truly a site to behold though. You can go on youtube and find countless awful chi sao videos, but when you find a good one it's refreshing and shows you what Wing Chun truly is. It's not the system itself that has failed, but a lot of terrible instructors that have watered it down. I have two years of Wing Chun experience under two different instructors.



When the poor quality instruction is the rule and the good quality instruction is the exception.

It is the system.

Without competition you are not really using your art in a practical way.


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> When the poor quality instruction is the rule and the good quality instruction is the exception.
> 
> It is the system.
> 
> Without competition you are not really using your art in a practical way.



I was addressing the structure, concepts and techniques of Wing Chun. The style itself is a great system, when taught correctly. Some styles have been more fortunate than others when it comes to quality decline. A lot of this has to do with popularity and compromised standards. 

I agree that the wing chun schools that never spar and only do chi sao are setting themselves up for failure, but those are the low quality schools I'm referring to. I think Wing Chun schools should have a competitive nature and should train hard like any other martial art. I don't see it has a failing of the system, but a massive failing on the people that have contributed to its decline.


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> I was addressing the structure, concepts and techniques of Wing Chun. The style itself is a great system, when taught correctly. Some styles have been more fortunate than others when it comes to quality decline. A lot of this has to do with popularity and compromised standards.
> 
> I agree that the wing chun schools that never spar and only do chi sao are setting themselves up for failure, but those are the low quality schools I'm referring to. I think Wing Chun schools should have a competitive nature and should train hard like any other martial art. I don't see it has a failing of the system, but a massive failing on the people that have contributed to its decline.



If nobody can use the system. It is the system. 

If you refuse to separate the good from the bad then it colors the whole thing.


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> If nobody can use the system. It is the system.
> 
> If you refuse to separate the good from the bad then it colors the whole thing.



It's inaccurate to state that nobody can use it, it's that many are taught incorrectly. There are plenty of highly skilled Wing Chun practitioners in the world that have been taught correctly. 

Quality control of any Martial Art is impossible to maintain overall. However; as students we must learn to discern the good from the bad and fully recognize both. Thus we don't believe that any teachings under a certain style is unquestionable, nor should we believe that any teachings under another style is useless.


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> It's inaccurate to state that nobody can use it, it's that many are taught incorrectly. There are plenty of highly skilled Wing Chun practitioners in the world that have been taught correctly.
> 
> Quality control of any Martial Art is impossible to maintain overall. However; as students we must learn to discern the good from the bad and fully recognize both. Thus we don't believe that any teachings under a certain style is unquestionable, nor should we believe that any teachings under another style is useless.



Yeah look there are outliers who are using wing chun successfully. 

But they tend lo look completely different to your average chunner. Now that is fine if Barry red hot fighter has gumbies in his school. But when the gumbies are running the show you have an issue.

So you have guys for example in an Alan orr school who are really doing a different system In fact they cross train specifically in a different system.

And if you believe the guys on the Facebook forum. They are seriously taking notice of the different class of fighters these systems produce.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> When the poor quality instruction is the rule and the good quality instruction is the exception.
> 
> It is the system.
> 
> Without competition you are not really using your art in a practical way.


If by "system" you mean the whole of the people training the art, I agree. I think many use the term "system" to refer to the techniques and principles, and those can be taught myriad ways. While some people see the training methods used in WC as a part of the art, I've seen no evidence in any art, style, system, or even non-martial sport that changing the training methods must necessarily change the techniques and principles taught, except where adjustments are needed for functionality.


----------



## KPM

Anarax said:


> It's inaccurate to state that nobody can use it, it's that many are taught incorrectly. There are plenty of highly skilled Wing Chun practitioners in the world that have been taught correctly.
> 
> .



Great!  Let's see some of their sparring videos!  Preferably sparring someone other than a fellow Wing Chun guy.


----------



## Anarax

KPM said:


> Great!  Let's see some of their sparring videos!  Preferably sparring someone other than a fellow Wing Chun guy.



It's not difficult to find videos of skilled Wing Chun practitioners. However; if people are set on believing something is useless, they will most likely continue to believe that regardless of the contrary evidence.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If by "system" you mean the whole of the people training the art, I agree. I think many use the term "system" to refer to the techniques and principles, and those can be taught myriad ways. While some people see the training methods used in WC as a part of the art, I've seen no evidence in any art, style, system, or even non-martial sport that changing the training methods must necessarily change the techniques and principles taught, except where adjustments are needed for functionality.



The best example was guy B who mentioned swimming. Basically if I am doing brest stroke and you are doing freestyle you will go further faster with less effort.

The amount of training or individual ability would have to be so much greater than the other guy to make that work and it becomes not really atainable from a practical sense.

(obviously if you are mad keen to win races with just breast stroke go buck wild. Just realise the reality of the situation.)

Same with every endeveor. If you are aplying the wrong fundimentals you are either going to have to train much harder or just be born bigger and better than everybody else.

If you want the best results you have to train hard in a manner that will actually help you achieve the goal. Not train hard in some random manner and hope it works out.

So all of this means. (And this is a very basic martial arts concept) You have to have your fundimentals right. And this means you need your system to be working for you. Not against you.

You can see this with BJJ as an example. In the first fights vale tudo, mma,  it worked because nobody had a clue as to how to deal with it. Then people did and BJJ had to fix its system.

Not just train harder or find better instructors. There was no lack of proficiency. Just they did not have the right skillset.

Now bjj is a much more diverse system. And it works considerably better.


----------



## Juany118

Anarax said:


> It's not difficult to find videos of skilled Wing Chun practitioners. However; if people are set on believing something is useless, they will most likely continue to believe that regardless of the contrary evidence.



The issue is this for many, including many of us who study WC.
1. It appears that a majority of skilled people are skilled in everything but full on sparring/free fighting.  This is important because the consensus here is that without such pressure testing you lose real life effectiveness.
2. For those in #1 and even many who do spar, the effectiveness is shown only WC vs WC, which again impacts RL effectiveness.  

Now we have all seen some decent videos of real pressure testing but the ratio of those videos to the ones that are questionable or just show drills etc isn't great.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> The best example was guy B who mentioned swimming. Basically if I am doing brest stroke and you are doing freestyle you will go further faster with less effort.
> 
> The amount of training or individual ability would have to be so much greater than the other guy to make that work and it becomes not really atainable from a practical sense.
> 
> (obviously if you are mad keen to win races with just breast stroke go buck wild. Just realise the reality of the situation.)
> 
> Same with every endeveor. If you are aplying the wrong fundimentals you are either going to have to train much harder or just be born bigger and better than everybody else.
> 
> If you want the best results you have to train hard in a manner that will actually help you achieve the goal. Not train hard in some random manner and hope it works out.
> 
> So all of this means. (And this is a very basic martial arts concept) You have to have your fundimentals right. And this means you need your system to be working for you. Not against you.
> 
> You can see this with BJJ as an example. In the first fights vale tudo, mma,  it worked because nobody had a clue as to how to deal with it. Then people did and BJJ had to fix its system.
> 
> Not just train harder or find better instructors. There was no lack of proficiency. Just they did not have the right skillset.
> 
> Now bjj is a much more diverse system. And it works considerably better.



Some WC lineages do this. The problem is that all too often those of other Lineages will say it has stopped being WC because of the additions.  I find this very odd for the YMWC Lineages though because YM himself did not teach in HK what he learned in his youth on the main land.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> if I am doing brest stroke and you are doing freestyle you will go further faster with less effort.


Let's compare these 2 different MA training.

1. Style A emphasizes on footwork. During the 1st day of the new students training, the teacher will require students to do fast running. The idea is even if you may not be able to find an opening on your opponent to attack, as long as you are moving, soon or later you will find your opponent's opening. The teacher then add punches into his student's running so his students will be good to attack a moving opponent.

2. Style B emphasizes on stance. During the 1st day of the new students training, the teacher will require students to stand still. The teacher then add punches into his student's standing so his students will be good to attack a static opinion.

Since these 2 approaches are different, it will produce different kind of students.


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> Yeah look there are outliers who are using wing chun successfully.
> 
> But they tend lo look completely different to your average chunner. Now that is fine if Barry red hot fighter has gumbies in his school. But when the gumbies are running the show you have an issue.
> 
> So you have guys for example in an Alan orr school who are really doing a different system In fact they cross train specifically in a different system.
> 
> And if you believe the guys on the Facebook forum. They are seriously taking notice of the different class of fighters these systems produce.



I agree that there are many Wing Chun practitioners that are lacking in skill and poor students being promoted creates problems. I just opposed condemning an entire system because it's poorly represented.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> Some WC lineages do this. The problem is that all too often those of other Lineages will say it has stopped being WC because of the additions.  I find this very odd for the YMWC Lineages though because YM himself did not teach in HK what he learned in his youth on the main land.


One of YM's student told me that there was a tournament in Hong Kong. One CLF guy used a right hay-maker on a WC guy. The WC guy used left Tan Shou to block it. The CLF guy's right hay-maker knocked through the WC guy's left Tan Shou and still hit on the WC guy's head. Next day the WC guy asked YM. YM told him to use the right Tan Shou to block opponent's right hay-maker instead.

If your opponent always used straight punch, you should have no problem to use your

- left arm to block a right punch,
- right arm to block a left punch.

But to use left arm to block a powerful right hay-maker, even with body turning, that powerful hay-maker can still go through.

We don't know what kind of experience that the original WC founder might have for dealing with hay-maker. IMO, to change is a must.


----------



## Anarax

Juany118 said:


> The issue is this for many, including many of us who study WC.
> 1. It appears that a majority of skilled people are skilled in everything but full on sparring/free fighting.  This is important because the consensus here is that without such pressure testing you lose real life effectiveness.
> 2. For those in #1 and even many who do spar, the effectiveness is shown only WC vs WC, which again impacts RL effectiveness.
> 
> Now we have all seen some decent videos of real pressure testing but the ratio of those videos to the ones that are questionable or just show drills etc isn't great.



Yes, in Wing Chun you can find plenty of bad videos of both sparring and drills. I agree that the amount of bad to good is staggering. However; good videos do exist of Wing Chun. I see your point though


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Some WC lineages do this. The problem is that all too often those of other Lineages will say it has stopped being WC because of the additions.  I find this very odd for the YMWC Lineages though because YM himself did not teach in HK what he learned in his youth on the main land.



And, and this is my issue. If the style is fine and it the the students or the training or the color of the uniforms or whatnot. They have a legitimate point. 

You don't have to look at your style and start making it a viable alternative. You just have to bury your head in the sand and keep thinking there is a fault in the students or something.


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> I agree that there are many Wing Chun practitioners that are lacking in skill and poor students being promoted creates problems. I just opposed condemning an entire system because it's poorly represented.



Where I am oposed to condemning the students if you have asked them to push a kart with square wheels.

There needs to be accountability from both sides. And this rhetoric removes the accountability from one side.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's compare these 2 different MA training.
> 
> 1. Style A emphasizes on footwork. During the 1st day of the new students training, the teacher will require students to do fast running. The idea is even if you may not be able to find an opening on your opponent to attack, as long as you are moving, soon or later you will find your opponent's opening. The teacher then add punches into his student's running so his students will be good to attack a moving opponent.
> 
> 2. Style B emphasizes on stance. During the 1st day of the new students training, the teacher will require students to stand still. The teacher then add punches into his student's standing so his students will be good to attack a static opinion.
> 
> Since these 2 approaches are different, it will produce different kind of students.



It is backwards. We are not just inventing a completely new style and seeing what happens. We should have a fairly good idea what sort of results both methods produce.

And that could be either method is better or both methods pretty much produce the same.

What we don't do is guess and mouthbox the results. We test the results and then apply the training that creates the best outcomes.


----------



## KPM

Anarax said:


> It's not difficult to find videos of skilled Wing Chun practitioners. .



Great!  Let's see their sparring vidoes!  Preferably against an opponent not also doing Wing Chun.  Thanks!


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> Where I am oposed to condemning the students if you have asked them to push a kart with square wheels.
> 
> There needs to be accountability from both sides. And this rhetoric removes the accountability from one side.



I meant poorly trained students, I agree that the instructors should be held accountable.


----------



## Nobody Important

There is so much talk and contention surrounding the supposed condemnation of Wing Chun. To be clear, I've never condemned the art, I asked the question "Is it being used wrong?"

Such a question forces you to exam the purpose of the art before determining its efficacy,  not the other way around.

I for one believe it to work great, however, I believe it's main purpose is for refinement, not fighting. Those who believe Wing Chun to be a highly advanced fighting art that addresses all aspects of combat are in my opinion out out touch with the reality of the situation. There is no empirical data to suggest that the art in its current platform of instruction or training works in the manner they so fervently believe.

As such, the question remains, "Is Wing Chun being used wrong?" "Has the real purpose of the art been distorted to fit a paradigm based on adaptations by past masters?"


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of YM's student told me that there was a tournament in Hong Kong. One CLF guy used a right hay-maker on a WC guy. The WC guy used left Tan Shou to block it. The CLF guy's right hay-maker knocked through the WC guy's left Tan Shou and still hit on the WC guy's head. Next day the WC guy asked YM. YM told him to use the right Tan Shou to block opponent's right hay-maker instead.
> 
> If your opponent always used straight punch, you should have no problem to use your
> 
> - left arm to block a right punch,
> - right arm to block a left punch.
> 
> But to use left arm to block a powerful right hay-maker, even with body turning, that powerful hay-maker can still go through.
> 
> We don't know what kind of experience that the original WC founder might have for dealing with hay-maker. IMO, to change is a must.



Yep, and we are taught exactly what you said here, right vs right, but we also learn something else as well, because over time TWC has seen evolvution (via additions to, not change of, the core bits).  While it is arguably in BJ, one doesn't typically see the elbow shield used in WC, but Sifu Keith Mazza and others see it as perfectly acceptable and "part of" TWC because that structure is defensively more solid against the haymaker without turning BUT there is the trade off that your ability to then counter attack with that same hand is largely limited to a hammer fist/knife hand/side palm.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> There is so much talk and contention surrounding the supposed condemnation of Wing Chun. To be clear, I've never condemned the art, I asked the question "Is it being used wrong?"
> 
> Such a question forces you to exam the purpose of the art before determining its efficacy,  not the other way around.
> 
> I for one believe it to work great, however, I believe it's main purpose is for refinement, not fighting. Those who believe Wing Chun to be a highly advanced fighting art that addresses all aspects of combat are in my opinion out out touch with the reality of the situation. There is no empirical data to suggest that the art in its current platform of instruction or training works in the manner they so fervently believe.
> 
> As such, the question remains, "Is Wing Chun being used wrong?" "Has the real purpose of the art been distorted to fit a paradigm based on adaptations by past masters?"



I have been giving the OP a lot of thought and I think part of the issue may be "what do we mean by 'used'?"  The way I look at WC is that it really is designed for the "street".  By this I mean that it is designed for very fast, sudden, close in, fighting where things are decided in a very compressed time frame.  That is what happens on the street and there I think WC is VERY good, regardless of the art that it faces.  However if you are looking at it as a competition art, what often becomes a "war of attrition" I don't think it would perform as well on it's own.  

So if used in the first case it is used properly, in the second, not so much.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I have been giving the OP a lot of thought and I think part of the issue may be "what do we mean by 'used'?"  The way I look at WC is that it really is designed for the "street".  By this I mean that it is designed for very fast, sudden, close in, fighting where things are decided in a very compressed time frame.  That is what happens on the street and there I think WC is VERY good, regardless of the art that it faces.  However if you are looking at it as a competition art, what often becomes a "war of attrition" I don't think it would perform as well on it's own.
> 
> So if used in the first case it is used properly, in the second, not so much.


Hi Juany,

I'm all honesty I feel that to be a straw man argument, a fight is a fight. Adaptation to environment is something all fighters contend with, plus, there is the fact that fist fighting is a perishable skill. There are so many factors to be taken into consideration it's impossible to train for them all, especially in a street scenario. Competitions are regulated, structured, and officiated to ensure consistency, thus results are more predictable, effective, & consistent . Believing that a system is designed purely for the street, ergo it is "unrestricted" and "too deadly" for competition that's why it fails in such venues, is a lie that protects one from the truth of a reality that contradicts a wanted belief. 

Fights in the ring can be very quick also, it's about the strategy employed. The bottom line is this, the only individuals having competitive success with Wing Chun are the ones who've modified their Wing Chun, to the point where many argue, "is it still Wing Chun?". Observable competition is the litmus test of the arts effectiveness,  not personal testimony. That's approaching the conversation from a scientific approach and not a faith based perspective, "what can be proven based on observable results and not personal belief?". 

Sadly this has fallen short, because there are too many that want their cake and to be able to eat it too. It becomes all encompassing, building a foundation upon fallacious statements that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief. My use is more subtle in that it is measured in small gains that can only be recognized on a personal level and tested by measuring individual progress. Fighting on the other hand is quantifiable and can be proven, weighed, and measured at the moment of its occurance.

Assessing Wing Chun' s fighting efficacy based on accepted parameters like, strategic, and biomechanical principals shouldn't be relegated to discussion of theoretical soundness as proof of effectiveness. If it truly is the fighting art it is touted to be then there needs to be unrequited proof that it works in the manner propagated. 

So far I am unconvinced that it is a stand alone all inclusive fighting art. Though I do believe, as a method to elevate a fighting method, it is quite good. I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise, perhaps because they truly believe so, or say so as a means of marketing & propogation, either way, that is the topic of another discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> Hi Juany,
> 
> I'm all honesty I feel that to be a straw man argument, a fight is a fight. Adaptation to environment is something all fighters contend with, plus, there is the fact that fist fighting is a perishable skill. There are so many factors to be taken into consideration it's impossible to train for them all, especially in a street scenario. Competitions are regulated, structured, and officiated to ensure consistency, thus results are more predictable, effective, & consistent . Believing that a system is designed purely for the street, ergo it is "unrestricted" and "too deadly" for competition that's why it fails in such venues, is a lie that protects one from the truth of a reality that contradicts a wanted belief.
> 
> Fights in the ring can be very quick also, it's about the strategy employed. The bottom line is this, the only individuals having competitive success with Wing Chun are the ones who've modified their Wing Chun, to the point where many argue, "is it still Wing Chun?". Observable competition is the litmus test of the arts effectiveness,  not personal testimony. That's approaching the conversation from a scientific approach and not a faith based perspective, "what can be proven based on observable results and not personal belief?".
> 
> Sadly this has fallen short, because there are too many that want their cake and to be able to eat it too. It becomes all encompassing, building a foundation upon fallacious statements that don't hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief. My use is more subtle in that it is measured in small gains that can only be recognized on a personal level and tested by measuring individual progress. Fighting on the other hand is quantifiable and can be proven, weighed, and measured at the moment of its occurance.
> 
> Assessing Wing Chun' s fighting efficacy based on accepted parameters like, strategic, and biomechanical principals shouldn't be relegated to discussion of theoretical soundness as proof of effectiveness. If it truly is the fighting art it is touted to be then there needs to be unrequited proof that it works in the manner propagated.
> 
> So far I am unconvinced that it is a stand alone all inclusive fighting art. Though I do believe, as a method to elevate a fighting method, it is quite good. I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise, perhaps because they truly believe so, or say so as a means of marketing & propogation, either way, that is the topic of another discussion.


Might some of the difference in view on this also be differences in how you've been exposed to the art? I've forgotten which lineage(s) you learned in, Dave - does it include TWC? If so, was the TWC you experienced taught the same way as what Juany experienced? The method of delivery (training methods) can have a significant impact on how an art is viewed, and can have an impact on how the art is used/usable.

Of course, there's also the possibility that Juany's previous training gave him a foundation that happens to fill gaps that he might otherwise perceive (even if they are only gaps in defense, rather than application of technique).


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> Might some of the difference in view on this also be differences in how you've been exposed to the art? I've forgotten which lineage(s) you learned in, Dave - does it include TWC? If so, was the TWC you experienced taught the same way as what Juany experienced? The method of delivery (training methods) can have a significant impact on how an art is viewed, and can have an impact on how the art is used/usable.
> 
> Of course, there's also the possibility that Juany's previous training gave him a foundation that happens to fill gaps that he might otherwise perceive (even if they are only gaps in defense, rather than application of technique).


I've never studied TWC. I have been exposed to it, as well as, other branches. My opinions are based on my own analysis and do not reflect the beliefs of any instructors I've studied under. My conclusions are based on what can be repeated with similar results in real time under pressure. If it can't, despite how well it is theoretically argued, it is a non-factor. I'm a realistic minded individual, I'm open to opposing views, but only if they prove to have positive, repeatable merit. Low percentage techniques, applications, and strategies skew results. Unfortunately much of modern Wing Chun IMO is based on arcane and unproven methods, this is why branches like TWC came into being. The only branches having any semblance of success in a competitive arena are heavily modified from their original format.


----------



## KPM

*Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief.* 

---Hi Dave!   I'm copying what I posted over on the "are forms useless?" thread because it fits here and I wanted to make sure you saw it.

Just what does "formless" really mean? When you move you are still using biomechanics. So are you using the same biomechanics from your forms or not? We can talk abstractly about expressing concepts and linkages, etc all day long. But you are still moving and still using biomechanics of some sort. Is it the biomechanics taught in your forms, or is it not? And if it is the biomechanics taught in your forms....then why wouldn't we expect it to look like recognizable Wing Chun?

Now I realize that in a real exchange you aren't going to always be in a good position...you might stumble, you might get caught at an odd angle, or you might get rocked and loose your structure! But within a couple of beats someone should be back on track again....in other words....snap right back into their Wing Chun. So at times it might not look like Wing Chun because it isn't Wing Chun! But in a back and forth exchange of sparring or a real fight, those times should be minimal. If nothing in the fight looks like Wing Chun, then there is a problem!

Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion! Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills. So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills". The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play! I find this to be the case with my Wing Chun Boxing! Western Boxing is the base...the gross motor skill. So basic sparring and fighting looks like boxing. The Wing Chun is used to add refinements and specific useful applications. So I have found that I HAVE been using Wing Chun in the way that Dave proposed it was intended to be used!  But we spend a lot of time training that "gross motor skill" from boxing. For some Wing Chun guys that end up looking like crappy kickboxing when they spar it may be because they are technically trying to use the same idea.....but they have never bothered to spend the time actually developing the "gross motor skill" that they end up using in their fighting!



*I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise,
*

---Now didn't you and I have a pretty good "dust up" awhile back over on the old KFO forum when I  said essentially the same thing you just said?


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> *Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief.*
> 
> ---Hi Dave!   I'm copying what I posted over on the "are forms useless?" thread because it fits here and I wanted to make sure you saw it.
> 
> Just what does "formless" really mean? When you move you are still using biomechanics. So are you using the same biomechanics from your forms or not? We can talk abstractly about expressing concepts and linkages, etc all day long. But you are still moving and still using biomechanics of some sort. Is it the biomechanics taught in your forms, or is it not? And if it is the biomechanics taught in your forms....then why wouldn't we expect it to look like recognizable Wing Chun?
> 
> Now I realize that in a real exchange you aren't going to always be in a good position...you might stumble, you might get caught at an odd angle, or you might get rocked and loose your structure! But within a couple of beats someone should be back on track again....in other words....snap right back into their Wing Chun. So at times it might not look like Wing Chun because it isn't Wing Chun! But in a back and forth exchange of sparring or a real fight, those times should be minimal. If nothing in the fight looks like Wing Chun, then there is a problem!
> 
> Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion! Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills. So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills". The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play! I find this to be the case with my Wing Chun Boxing! Western Boxing is the base...the gross motor skill. So basic sparring and fighting looks like boxing. The Wing Chun is used to add refinements and specific useful applications. So I have found that I HAVE been using Wing Chun in the way that Dave proposed it was intended to be used!  But we spend a lot of time training that "gross motor skill" from boxing. For some Wing Chun guys that end up looking like crappy kickboxing when they spar it may be because they are technically trying to use the same idea.....but they have never bothered to spend the time actually developing the "gross motor skill" that they end up using in their fighting!
> 
> 
> 
> *I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise,
> *
> 
> ---Now didn't you and I have a pretty good "dust up" awhile back over on the old KFO forum when I  said essentially the same thing you just said?


Hi Keith,

Good post, and I agree with many of your points and perspective. I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we did have a dust up and let me explain with a question. Is Wing Chun the structure or the principles & theory? They can exist seperately, so it's hard to justify the argument that it is both. If it is both it is reasonable to assume that structure (biomechanucs) are also subject to refinement. Since both things are subject to the refinement process, neither will have a dominant presence, but appear as they are refined. My argument was about the, structure, principles & theory of refined movement using Wing Chun methodology, therefore it is Wing Chun. Now this doesn't mean it is pure Wing Chun. As you stated, structure is also important, but from my perspective, this comes as part of the refinement process. When you speak of using boxing as the base & refining with Wing Chun, I think you've nailed what I'm speaking too and IMO a proper use of Wing Chun, ergo you are doing Wing Chun but not the instructional system of it.

That's the difference, I don't believe the instructional (classical, traditional, formal, etc.) system of Wing Chun was meant to be used as a stand alone all inclusive fighting method. Its a tool used to refine an actual simple method, like boxing or San Da. That's why we see it infused in other systems like Hung Gar, White Crane, etc. The same arguments can be made for Tai Chi and Ba Gua. Used in this manner, from my perspective, it's the correct use, therefore it is Wing Chun. Does that make sense to you?


----------



## Juany118

*PREFACE:* let me note that my description is based on my pre-TWC Wing Chun experience.  TWC is obviously different in many ways, not just in some of the functional methodology but how it is taught (Sifu Keith taking the classic, man sau /wu stance and saying "no one really fights like this...").  Also let me note this, the previous WC I took was a WSLVT under a student of Gary Lam.  That had "standing grappling" but that was largely a more "firm" method of trapping so one could strike.  I do think WC period is good against a dedicated striking art, so long as you can get your opponent to play "your game", in other words pray you aren't fighting a Mayweather who is so good at dancing you can't maintain the "blitz" (more on the "blitz" later).  I won't get into grappling right now because this would become a novel.

*THAT SAID:
*
In my experience there is a distinct difference in a street fight and by that I mean someone suddenly trying to rob you, someone looking to outright assault you. You can have a street fight that is a stereotypical competition, such as two drunk idiots facing off at a bar but they are both very different. Let me explain.

In a stereotypical competition (or the bar fight), for lack of a better term, you are looking to win.  You win by either points in a competition or by pounding the other guy into the ground so that he can no longer fight in both. You have the sizing up phase, everybody knows it's coming, and because of that people fight typically in a more reason door controlled fashion, though you are correct in that this is not always the case. They test each other they might use a strategy of softening the other person up things like that.
_________________________________________

In the assault, robbery street fight type scenario there is no testing you need to go all in everybody goes all-in right out of the gate. It's basically a "blitz attack" art (told you I would get there  ), even the defenses are not simply about protecting, or even injuring (as some arts do) but wedging your way in to attack.  This method is much more suited to either A) the street attacks I noted OR B) the competition method you note.  

If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage.  On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you  .

Think of it like Warfare.  There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.  This is different from conventional Warfare which is about not only winning the individual battle but also winning the ground on which that battle was fought (you stay they leave).  Now sometimes in guerrilla warfare you hit so hard against the opponent that you do actually manage to control the land when everything is said and done but that is the best case scenario, as I said.

Hope this explains a bit better where I am coming from.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I've never studied TWC. I have been exposed to it, as well as, other branches. My opinions are based on my own analysis and do not reflect the beliefs of any instructors I've studied under. My conclusions are based on what can be repeated with similar results in real time under pressure. If it can't, despite how well it is theoretically argued, it is a non-factor. I'm a realistic minded individual, I'm open to opposing views, but only if they prove to have positive, repeatable merit. Low percentage techniques, applications, and strategies skew results. Unfortunately much of modern Wing Chun IMO is based on arcane and unproven methods, this is why branches like TWC came into being. The only branches having any semblance of success in a competitive arena are heavily modified from their original format.



TWC has influences though from real fighting to this day, though admittedly not in the Ring.  It starts with GM Cheung in the Roof Top Fights, it then continues to people like Sifu Phil Redmond who did MUSU fights and then introduced Sifu Jerry Devone to them, or Sifu Keith Mazza and my Sifu who not only competed but did "hands on" training in "security" for some of the top clubs in LA (working the door with the bouncers), and are now a Federal LE instructors cert. instructors.  My Sifu was operational in LE and Sifu Keith is also cert. for the Marines, Naval Special Warfare Command and Army Special Operations Command.  Back in the day (before my time) Sifu Keith and Sifu Jerry had "open nights" for other schools to come and spar at their school but it died out due to lack of popularity.  There are actually some videos of the sparring on the Bullshido forums, I'll see if I can find them.

Now maybe I am lucky and my corner of TWC is unique in this regard, but this is my TWC experience.  TWC is also, in my opinion, more well rounded than some other lineages.  While we may disagree on some minor points I think @KPM would concur with me on this.


----------



## TMA17

"So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. "

I believe this.  Great point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> The way I look at WC is that it really is designed for the "street".  By this I mean that it is designed for very fast, sudden, close in, fighting where things are decided in a very compressed time frame.  That is what happens on the street and there I think WC is VERY good, regardless of the art that it faces.  However if you are looking at it as a competition art, what often becomes a "war of attrition" I don't think it would perform as well on it's own.


There are "challenge fight" happened in the past. The "challenge fight" is no different from today's "sport fight".


----------



## geezer

I like Juany's analogy of warfare. Take historical European fighting techniques and tactics for example. In any given time-frame the choice of weapons and manner of fighting was totally different depending on whether you were fighting a duel, a brawl, guerrilla actions, or large-scale organized warfare between armies. The same distinctions apply today. And even if you restrict your discussion to dealing with "street fighting" you may be talking about hierarchical combat between young males, gang turf-wars and reprisals, responding to urban predators such as muggers and rapists, or the far more measured and restricted behaviors of LEOs dealing with the above.

Competitive "sport" martial arts give skills ant the physical conditioning to handle some of the above, but fighters in the ring use very different strategies than what you might need for self defense. Where I live, many choose to depend upon firearms for self-defense. Knives are also very common.I believe WC also has it's place, especially in dealing with predatory attacks where an immediate and _explosive offense followed by escape_ may be the best strategy.


----------



## TMA17

"WC also has it's place, especially in dealing with predatory attacks where an immediate and _explosive offense followed by escape_ may be the best strategy."

So far that's where I see WC excelling.  And you have to be aggressive with it.  It's definitely effective in that range and when used in an explosive manner.  IMO.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> *PREFACE:* let me note that my description is based on my pre-TWC Wing Chun experience.  TWC is obviously different in many ways, not just in some of the functional methodology but how it is taught (Sifu Keith taking the classic, man sau /wu stance and saying "no one really fights like this...").  Also let me note this, the previous WC I took was a WSLVT under a student of Gary Lam.  That had "standing grappling" but that was largely a more "firm" method of trapping so one could strike.  I do think WC period is good against a dedicated striking art, so long as you can get your opponent to play "your game", in other words pray you aren't fighting a Mayweather who is so good at dancing you can't maintain the "blitz" (more on the "blitz" later).  I won't get into grappling right now because this would become a novel.
> 
> *THAT SAID:
> *
> In my experience there is a distinct difference in a street fight and by that I mean someone suddenly trying to rob you, someone looking to outright assault you. You can have a street fight that is a stereotypical competition, such as two drunk idiots facing off at a bar but they are both very different. Let me explain.
> 
> In a stereotypical competition (or the bar fight), for lack of a better term, you are looking to win.  You win by either points in a competition or by pounding the other guy into the ground so that he can no longer fight in both. You have the sizing up phase, everybody knows it's coming, and because of that people fight typically in a more reason door controlled fashion, though you are correct in that this is not always the case. They test each other they might use a strategy of softening the other person up things like that.
> _________________________________________
> 
> In the assault, robbery street fight type scenario there is no testing you need to go all in everybody goes all-in right out of the gate. It's basically a "blitz attack" art (told you I would get there  ), even the defenses are not simply about protecting, or even injuring (as some arts do) but wedging your way in to attack.  This method is much more suited to either A) the street attacks I noted OR B) the competition method you note.
> 
> If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage.  On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you  .
> 
> Think of it like Warfare.  There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.  This is different from conventional Warfare which is about not only winning the individual battle but also winning the ground on which that battle was fought (you stay they leave).  Now sometimes in guerrilla warfare you hit so hard against the opponent that you do actually manage to control the land when everything is said and done but that is the best case scenario, as I said.
> 
> Hope this explains a bit better where I am coming from.



Which is still a small section of ring craft. Where you might spend ten or fifteen seconds just brawling it out or trying to recover from a shot you did not see coming.

The issue you have is there are a lot of elements to being a pressure fighter, Hitting harder than the other guy, Really good cardio and a strong chin which are not really emphasized. You are basically biting off more than you can chew.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> I like Juany's analogy of warfare. Take historical European fighting techniques and tactics for example. In any given time-frame the choice of weapons and manner of fighting was totally different depending on whether you were fighting a duel, a brawl, guerrilla actions, or large-scale organized warfare between armies. The same distinctions apply today. And even if you restrict your discussion to dealing with "street fighting" you may be talking about hierarchical combat between young males, gang turf-wars and reprisals, responding to urban predators such as muggers and rapists, or the far more measured and restricted behaviors of LEOs dealing with the above.
> 
> Competitive "sport" martial arts give skills ant the physical conditioning to handle some of the above, but in the ring use very different strategies. Where I live, many choose to depend upon firearms for self-defense. WC also has it's place, especially in dealing with predatory attacks where an immediate and explosive offense, followed by escape may be the best strategy.



The initial strategy for approach and recovery may be different, but, when contact is made both scenarios (street & ring) are quantifiably equal in mindset. At this point the idea is to survive the encounter. The idea that Wing Chun is designed for the street, therefore, unusable without significant modification in the ring, is a fallacy. There are known rules in a competition, this means one knows what they can legally do and what they can expect to defend against. There are no rules in a street altercation and the variables are unknown, making a successful outcome way more elusive. It should be easier to prepare and defend in a competition compared to a street altercation if the body and mind are trained equally. Unless the argument is that you can do whatever necessary to defend yourself in the street and you train a number of odd and arcane scenarios. If so, then you have to ask yourself, is that spontaneous reaction of grabbing, spitting, hair pulling, biting, eye gouging, testicle grabbing, screaming, running, object throwing etc. part of your Wing Chun system? Is it in the forms? Do you drill it from all positions? Do those movements adhere to Wing Chun strategy, principles, theory & biomechanics?

It's  a tired argument and a lie many tell themselves to justify a belief that they are afraid to contradict. Its nothing more than adhering to dogma for fear that the truth with destroy the comfortable fantasy they have built to protect their ego.

It doesn't bother me if people don't use Wing Chun to fight with, what does bother me, are the ones who adamantly believe they can if they so chose to without ever having done so and teach this ideology to others. All on an untested system of faith.

Again the only individuals who are testing Wing Chun on a systematic scale have systems that are heavily modified, some to the point where it cannot easily be recognized as such. This is a dilemma. It puts forward the question, "What is Wing Chun?" "What alterations & modifications can be implemented and it still be considered Wing Chun?" And, depending on your answers, "Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?"

If you ask me, "Is Wing Chun a boxing method?" My response is No! The entire art is based on bridge movements. 95% of the techniques & principles in the forms have a primary emphasis other than striking. This tells me that it is not a striking art, but something else. Boxing methods focus on striking, like Western Boxing.

Yet because of Yip Man's popularity and modifications to the art of Wing Chun everyone assumes his interpretation that its a boxing method is the correct one. Yet there is no empirical evidence to suggest his ideas work when put to the test. I realise this is inflammatory & many will be upset over the comment, but show me the evidence that it can stand on its own as a boxing method against another method. Until then, I say it's not a boxing method but a refinement tool as evidenced by the many who have successfully used Wing Chun to elevate their competative fighting styles but don't use it as a stand alone all inclusive form of combat.


----------



## drop bear

Nobody Important said:


> The initial strategy for approach and recovery may be different, but, when contact is made both scenarios (street & ring) are quantifiably equal in mindset. At this point the idea is to survive the encounter. The idea that Wing Chun is designed for the street, therefore, unusable without significant modification in the ring, is a fallacy. There are known rules in a competition, this means one knows what they can legally do and what they can expect to defend against. There are no rules in a street altercation and the variables are unknown, making a successful outcome way more elusive. It should be easier to prepare and defend in a competition compared to a street altercation if the body and mind are trained equally. Unless the argument is that you can do whatever necessary to defend yourself in the street and you train a number of odd and arcane scenarios. If so, then you have to ask yourself, is that spontaneous reaction of grabbing, spitting, hair pulling, biting, eye gouging, testicle grabbing, screaming, running, object throwing etc. part of your Wing Chun system? Is it in the forms? Do you drill it from all positions? Do those movements adhere to Wing Chun strategy, principles, theory & biomechanics?



All of this, regardless of what street system you do requires you to be able to fight first and foremost. I put you in an eyegouge off with a boxer. You are going to have a bad day. I put you in a hair pull with a wrestler you will loose. This basic functional craft is the most important thing you can master. Well before you start training to find a brick lying around to stave someone's head in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Well before you start training to find a brick lying around to stave someone's head in.


The brick is the best street fight weapon. In one group fight, the moment that the fight started, a guy went to find brick. When he came back with brick in his hand, the fight was already over.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The brick is the best street fight weapon. In one group fight, the moment that the fight started, a guy went to find brick. When he came back with brick in his hand, the fight was already over.



Well it takes a while to find the right brick.


----------



## geezer

Dave -- I don't entirely agree with all of what you said, but I like that you are putting it out there! The point I was trying to make above was simply that self defense and competitive fighting have areas of overlap, but have very different objectives. Surviving and winning are very different things.

This becomes very clear if you take it to extremes. For example: I hold with the old teaching that self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, and lastly (if all else fails) physical defense against an assailant (or multiple assailants). According to this scale, the best self defense is awareness and avoidance -- i.e. _never getting into a fight, _followed by de-escalation and escape -- i.e._ talking your way clear or running away. _I've never seen a competitive fighting art that trains _avoiding_ competition, and failing that, advocates jumping out of the ring and _running away!_

Now even if you aren't in a position to run away and have to resort to physical action, the objective of the defender in an attack is not the same as that of a competitor in the ring. However, there is much in common, as you point out, including toughness and determination, and not being rattled by the first punch you take. Certainly combat sports train that very well.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> Dave -- I don't entirely agree with all of what you said, but I like that you are putting it out there! The point I was trying to make above was simply that self defense and competitive fighting have areas of overlap, but have very different objectives. Surviving and winning are very different things.
> 
> This becomes very clear if you take it to extremes. For example: I hold with the old teaching that self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, and lastly (if all else fails) physical defense against an assailant (or multiple assailants). According to this scale, the best self defense is awareness and avoidance -- i.e. _never getting into a fight, _followed by de-escalation and escape -- i.e._ talking your way clear or running away. _I've never seen a competitive fighting art that trains _avoiding_ competition, and failing that, advocates jumping out of the ring and _running away!_
> 
> Now even if you aren't in a position to run away and have to resort to physical action, the objective of the defender in an attack is not the same as that of a competitor in the ring. However, there is much in common, as you point out, including toughness and determination, and not being rattled by the first punch you take. Certainly combat sports train that very well.



My point is essentially that an art cannot train a mindset separately from the physical application of that mindset. They are symbiotic. I've witnessed schools do this, they discuss mindset in depth but fail to put it into action. I've seen schools focus on "what if's" while neglecting fundamentals, and I seen schools use Chi Sau as if it's the penultimate of self-defense action. I can't agree with this approach or condone the ideology of a "street defense" narrative it supports. 

Wing Chun is a wonderful system, for what it was designed for. Unfortunately, I feel that many have the wrong assumptions about it. I can effectively use a wrench as a hammer, but that doesn't mean that's what it was designed for, and as a result, we have a myriad of conflicting ideologies and methods that do little to contradict my ascertations.

I don't begrudge anyone for their beliefs, but I'm a scientist, and if you want to convince me that your methodology is correct, I need proof not faith based testimony.


----------



## Nobody Important

drop bear said:


> All of this, regardless of what street system you do requires you to be able to fight first and foremost. I put you in an eyegouge off with a boxer. You are going to have a bad day. I put you in a hair pull with a wrestler you will loose. This basic functional craft is the most important thing you can master. Well before you start training to find a brick lying around to stave someone's head in.


Willingness to fight is important, without that mindset, learning how to fight will do little good. But aside from that, my point was, relying on hairpulling, eye gouging etc. As an integral part of your "arsenal" is foolish, just as is depending on low percentage applications. People need to stick to well tested fundamentals and work from there.


----------



## KPM

*If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage.  On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you*  .

----I see what you're saying.  But I would also point out that in a street altercation it may start as a surprise attack and you may have to go "all out" and "blitz" the attacker....but.....the second there is a pause in the action because your blitz didn't quite shut him down, you are facing off and are going to have to make some "strategic" decisions.  So the question would be....how often does your initial response do the trick and how often is there a break in the action where you might have to engage again?  If there is a break before another engagement, then you are in a fight my friend.  And as Dave pointed out, a fight is a fight.


*Think of it like Warfare.  There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. * 

---But in the end, warfare is warfare and fighting is fighting.  Too often people (not you) try to use the "Wing Chun is for self defense not sparring" argument to justify why they suck so bad at  sparring or simply never do it.  But a fight is a fight.  If someone can't get their Wing Chun to work in sparring, how in hell do they think they are going to get it to work in a real fight on the  street?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Nobody Important said:


> Wing Chun is a wonderful system, for what it was designed for. Unfortunately, I feel that many have the wrong assumptions about it.


If you can do this, you don't need anything else.


----------



## KPM

*
I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we did have a dust up and let me explain with a question. Is Wing Chun the structure or the principles & theory? *

---I don't think that quite answers my question.  

*They can exist seperately, so it's hard to justify the argument that it is both.*

---Jeet Kune Do uses most of the principles of Wing Chun, but not the structure.  So is JKD a version of Wing Chun?  Some have said "yes", most JKD guys would say "no."  I have yet to see Wing Chun structure without the principles and theory, since so many of those principle and theories embody the structure that is used to express them.  In other words....Wing Chun structure without the principles and theories would likely not work at all.


* When you speak of using boxing as the base & refining with Wing Chun, I think you've nailed what I'm speaking too and IMO a proper use of Wing Chun, ergo you are doing Wing Chun but not the instructional system of it.*

----Maybe I"m too much of a purist.  But I would not say I am doing Wing Chun, just like I would not say that JKD is a version of Wing Chun.  I would say I am doing Wing Chun  Boxing!  I am doing Boxing that is heavily influenced by Wing Chun.  I could the drop the Wing Chun at any point and just Box.  Boxing is the base mechanic.  That is why I would say it is not Wing Chun.  But...on the other hand...I look at what Mark Phillips is doing and I see Wing Chun that is heavily influenced by Boxing.  But I would say he is still doing Wing Chun.  I think its a spectrum.  Mark Phillips is on one end, Paul Rackemann is on the other and I am somewhere in between.  But if Mark Phillips was to use more and more boxing mechanics.....start using jabs/crosses/hooks/ducks/weaves/etc...then I would say he is doing boxing and not Wing Chun.  To me the "engine determines the art."  The base mechanics...the way you move and generate power...is what defines things.  You can use all the theories and concepts and refinements you want.  But the engine makes the art.....the gross motor skill...the base....that is the art.

*That's the difference, I don't believe the instructional (classical, traditional, formal, etc.) system of Wing Chun was meant to be used as a stand alone all inclusive fighting method. Its a tool used to refine an actual simple method, like boxing or San Da. *

---Yeah I like  that idea.  I like what you are saying.  I'm just not too sure it was true on an historical basis though.  When Leung Jan taught Wing Chun in Ku Lo village, those villagers weren't refining a base art.  They were learning Wing Chun from the ground up. Yuen Kay Shan, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi made their reputations fighting with Wing Chun.  Not fighting with Hung Ga or some other village art that had been refined by Wing Chun.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> *If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage.  On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you*  .
> 
> ----I see what you're saying.  But I would also point out that in a street altercation it may start as a surprise attack and you may have to go "all out" and "blitz" the attacker....but.....the second there is a pause in the action because your blitz didn't quite shut him down, you are facing off and are going to have to make some "strategic" decisions.  So the question would be....how often does your initial response do the trick and how often is there a break in the action where you might have to engage again?  If there is a break before another engagement, then you are in a fight my friend.  And as Dave pointed out, a fight is a fight.
> 
> 
> *Think of it like Warfare.  There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. *
> 
> ---But in the end, warfare is warfare and fighting is fighting.  Too often people (not you) try to use the "Wing Chun is for self defense not sparring" argument to justify why they suck so bad at  sparring or simply never do it.  But a fight is a fight.  If someone can't get their Wing Chun to work in sparring, how in hell do they think they are going to get it to work in a real fight on the  street?



Also forcing a blitz puts you in a war of attrition. I would prefer to hang back and not get punched as much.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> I hold with the old teaching that self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, and lastly (if all else fails) physical defense against an assailant (or multiple assailants). According to this scale, the best self defense is awareness and avoidance -- i.e. _never getting into a fight, _followed by de-escalation and escape -- i.e._ talking your way clear or running away. _I've never seen a competitive fighting art that trains _avoiding_ competition, and failing that, advocates jumping out of the ring and _running away!_



I agree with you Steve!  But how many schools that don't spar, that say Wing Chun was not meant for competition, that say Wing Chun is for self defense....how many of them really take that seriously and emphasis the points you just outlined?  If they really took the idea seriously that Wing Chun is a self defense art, then they would spend FAR more time on mental strategies, environmental awareness drills, surprise attack drills in full body armour protection, and FAR  FAR less time on Chi Sau!  Their classes would look more like a Krav Maga class and less like a Tai Chi class!


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> *I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we did have a dust up and let me explain with a question. Is Wing Chun the structure or the principles & theory? *
> 
> ---I don't think that quite answers my question.
> 
> *They can exist seperately, so it's hard to justify the argument that it is both.*
> 
> ---Jeet Kune Do uses most of the principles of Wing Chun, but not the structure.  So is JKD a version of Wing Chun?  Some have said "yes", most JKD guys would say "no."  I have yet to see Wing Chun structure without the principles and theory, since so many of those principle and theories embody the structure that is used to express them.  In other words....Wing Chun structure without the principles and theories would likely not work at all.
> 
> 
> * When you speak of using boxing as the base & refining with Wing Chun, I think you've nailed what I'm speaking too and IMO a proper use of Wing Chun, ergo you are doing Wing Chun but not the instructional system of it.*
> 
> ----Maybe I"m too much of a purist.  But I would not say I am doing Wing Chun, just like I would not say that JKD is a version of Wing Chun.  I would say I am doing Wing Chun  Boxing!  I am doing Boxing that is heavily influenced by Wing Chun.  I could the drop the Wing Chun at any point and just Box.  Boxing is the base mechanic.  That is why I would say it is not Wing Chun.  But...on the other hand...I look at what Mark Phillips is doing and I see Wing Chun that is heavily influenced by Boxing.  But I would say he is still doing Wing Chun.  I think its a spectrum.  Mark Phillips is on one end, Paul Rackemann is on the other and I am somewhere in between.  But if Mark Phillips was to use more and more boxing mechanics.....start using jabs/crosses/hooks/ducks/weaves/etc...then I would say he is doing boxing and not Wing Chun.  To me the "engine determines the art."  The base mechanics...the way you move and generate power...is what defines things.  You can use all the theories and concepts and refinements you want.  But the engine makes the art.....the gross motor skill...the base....that is the art.
> 
> *That's the difference, I don't believe the instructional (classical, traditional, formal, etc.) system of Wing Chun was meant to be used as a stand alone all inclusive fighting method. Its a tool used to refine an actual simple method, like boxing or San Da. *
> 
> ---Yeah I like  that idea.  I like what you are saying.  I'm just not too sure it was true on an historical basis though.  When Leung Jan taught Wing Chun in Ku Lo village, those villagers weren't refining a base art.  They were learning Wing Chun from the ground up. Yuen Kay Shan, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi made their reputations fighting with Wing Chun.  Not fighting with Hung Ga or some other village art that had been refined by Wing Chun.


What isn't well known about those old master's you mentioned is that they had foundations in other arts. And I'll disagree, there is enough difference in those master's approaches to insist that they were using blended methods. Yuen family is heavily influenced by White Crane and has a heavy emphasis on grappling, this isn't found in Yip Man's system. Some old branches are heavily influenced by Hung Gar, Pao Fa Lian for example. Wing Chun took its modern shape & approach long after its development. Much of this approach was altered to conform to popular trends of the day. We don't know what these old master's fighting looked like. And each successive generation adds their own developments and ideas to it. Many, unforunfortunately based on what's popular, not what's coherent. In a way it's coming full circle, but the lines are becoming blurred because of how minutia and semantics are interpreted, Wing Chun like Boxing has many different "engines".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> What isn't well known about those old master's you mentioned is that they had foundations in other arts. And I'll disagree, there is enough difference in those master's approaches to insist that they were using blended methods. Yuen family is heavily influenced by White Crane and has a heavy emphasis on grappling, this isn't found in Yip Man's system. Some old branches are heavily influenced by Hung Gar, Pao Fa Lian for example. Wing Chun took its modern shape & approach long after its development. Much of this approach was altered to conform to popular trends of the day. We don't know what these old master's fighting looked like. And each successive generation adds their own developments and ideas to it. Many, unforunfortunately based on what's popular, not what's coherent. In a way it's coming full circle, but the lines are becoming blurred because of how minutia and semantics are interpreted, Wing Chun like Boxing has many different "engines".


Interesting. This is starting to sound a lot like some of the discussions I've had about Ueshiba's Aikido.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage.  On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you*  .
> 
> ----I see what you're saying.  But I would also point out that in a street altercation it may start as a surprise attack and you may have to go "all out" and "blitz" the attacker....but.....the second there is a pause in the action because your blitz didn't quite shut him down, you are facing off and are going to have to make some "strategic" decisions.  So the question would be....how often does your initial response do the trick and how often is there a break in the action where you might have to engage again?  If there is a break before another engagement, then you are in a fight my friend.  And as Dave pointed out, a fight is a fight.
> 
> 
> *Think of it like Warfare.  There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. *
> 
> ---But in the end, warfare is warfare and fighting is fighting.  Too often people (not you) try to use the "Wing Chun is for self defense not sparring" argument to justify why they suck so bad at  sparring or simply never do it.  But a fight is a fight.  If someone can't get their Wing Chun to work in sparring, how in hell do they think they are going to get it to work in a real fight on the  street?



I agree with you completely on the last point, if you can't make it work when you pressure test, it's not working, however let's go back to my initial analogy... Warfare.

Warefare is not warfare.  If I say "Guerrilla army face off against this conventional Army with armored vehicles on this open plain, no choice..." The former will get DESTROYED by the later because you are fighting on their terms.  As such the type of pressure testing matters.

When I studied previously, and sometimes currently, the Sifus do NOT let you test.  They have you surrounded by your classmates, yelling at you to attack.  If you start doing what I am personally inclined to do while sparring, test and problem methodically, you are yelled at.  If you back up you are bouncing into a fellow student who pushes you at your opponent.  You are forced to blitz attack, and defend against such.  So again, as I have said before, it's as much about the training as the art itself, if not more so.  This is why I am always careful to qualify my opinions as my personal experience.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I agree with you completely on the last point, if you can't make it work when you pressure test, it's not working, however let's go back to my initial analogy... Warfare.
> 
> Warefare is not warfare.  If I say "Guerrilla army face off against this conventional Army with armored vehicles on this open plain, no choice..." The former will get DESTROYED by the later because you are fighting on their terms.  As such the type of pressure testing matters.
> 
> When I studied previously, and sometimes currently, the Sifus do NOT let you test.  They have you surrounded by your classmates, yelling at you to attack.  If you start doing what I am personally inclined to do while sparring, test and problem methodically, you are yelled at.  If you back up you are bouncing into a fellow student who pushes you at your opponent.  You are forced to blitz attack, and defend against such.  So again, as I have said before, it's as much about the training as the art itself, if not more so.  This is why I am always careful to qualify my opinions as my personal experience.



But you can incorporate a drill that does anything.

When I did BJJ we butflopped every chance we got so therefore the street.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But you can incorporate a drill that does anything.
> 
> When I did BJJ we butflopped every chance we got so therefore the street.



I am confused because I am not talking about drills, not even a little bit.  Clarify please.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I am confused because I am not talking about drills, not even a little bit.  Clarify please.



You have set up a training scenario where blitzing is the only viable response.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You have set up a training scenario where blitzing is the only viable response.


I thought that was the point he was making.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I thought that was the point he was making.



Could be. I thought it was more an indication of how blitzing works in real time.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You have set up a training scenario where blitzing is the only viable response.



Yes but it isn't a drill.  It's at "spar" intensity, so I would say calling it a "drill" isn't quite right.  To me a drill and pressure testing are two different animals.  That's what confused me.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can do this, you don't need anything else.


Maybe...if the situation warrants. I would not recommend a blitz as in the video if the other was holding a bladed weapon or a firearm.
It worked well against this particular opponent at this particular time. Verses another who would angle out rather than just going straight back the success of such a blitz will be reduced significantly.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Also forcing a blitz puts you in a war of attrition. I would prefer to hang back and not get punched as much.



The thing is a "war of attrition" is not simply about shooting/punching etc.  It's about endurance.  So if you are constantly moving, constantly trying to use shots to keep your opponent at bay, you are using resources.  Now if you goal is a delaying action until reinforcements arrive it makes sense.  The thing is if you run out of fuel, you can't do it anymore.

To put this in a combative aspect  variation of the delaying asspect is often a "go-to" tactic of police officers who can restrain a suspect but not successfully cuff them.  You "hold on" until other units arrive.

In other circumstances however, when reinforcements are incoming, delaying actions, even if to try and find a more advantageous position, may not be a good idea because you have less endurance than the other guy.  

So my main point regarding the WC Lineages being "used wrong" is that it is an art designed around efficiency.  It's not about using energy to evade being hit, which also often means you can't easily hit yourself, it's about going "all in.". 

Now this is not necessarily always the best strategy in a fight, just like guerilla tactics aren't suited for every battle field


----------



## TMA17

“So my main point regarding the WC Lineages being "used wrong" is that it is an art designed around efficiency. It's not about using energy to evade being hit, which also often means you can't easily hit yourself, it's about going "all in.". 

Now this is not necessarily always the best strategy in a fight, just like guerilla tactics aren't suited for every battle field.”

This is a great point IMO.  It really is an art about maximizing efficiency and ending a fight as quick as possible with least amount of energy.  

WSL WC was an aggressive WC approach.  I think maybe that is why he had such good success with it.


----------



## Nobody Important

TMA17 said:


> This is a great point IMO.  It really is an art about maximizing efficiency and ending a fight as quick as possible with least amount of energy.



What martial art doesn't embody such things?


----------



## TMA17

True.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> What martial art doesn't embody such things?



It depends on how you define efficiency.  Let's go back to my analogy.  If you have limited fuel and ammunition, but must fights.  Does it make sense to delay, and avoid being hit while sniping at your enemy, while wasting precious fuel OR do you attempt a shock attack hoping that while using your limited resources in an show of force will overwhelm the opponent.  While arguably I "one trick pony" I think some WC styles fall under this kind of attitude.  When it works it works spectacularly, when it fails it fails in an equally spectacular fashion.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The thing is a "war of attrition" is not simply about shooting/punching etc.  It's about endurance.  So if you are constantly moving, constantly trying to use shots to keep your opponent at bay, you are using resources.  Now if you goal is a delaying action until reinforcements arrive it makes sense.  The thing is if you run out of fuel, you can't do it anymore.
> 
> To put this in a combative aspect  variation of the delaying asspect is often a "go-to" tactic of police officers who can restrain a suspect but not successfully cuff them.  You "hold on" until other units arrive.
> 
> In other circumstances however, when reinforcements are incoming, delaying actions, even if to try and find a more advantageous position, may not be a good idea because you have less endurance than the other guy.
> 
> So my main point regarding the WC Lineages being "used wrong" is that it is an art designed around efficiency.  It's not about using energy to evade being hit, which also often means you can't easily hit yourself, it's about going "all in.".
> 
> Now this is not necessarily always the best strategy in a fight, just like guerilla tactics aren't suited for every battle field



Delaying tactics prolong your endurance. If you have less than the other guy you really shouldn't go all in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Delaying tactics prolong your endurance. If you have less than the other guy you really shouldn't go all in.


It depends on your age. If you are 70 and your opponent is 20, you won't have enough energy to fight him for 15 rounds. You may want to finish the fight ASAP.

Take risk? May be! You cannot afford not to.


----------



## Nobody Important

Context determines strategy which determines efficiency. 

Overanalyzing "what if's" to support a narrative in attempts to justify a belief does little to address common sense and practicality.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Delaying tactics prolong your endurance. If you have less than the other guy you really shouldn't go all in.



@Kung Fu Wang sums it up better than I can.  Keeping at opponent at a distance in a fight uses fuel/energy.  The smaller your "tank" the less time you have to devote to anything, whether it be running, delaying, attacking, defending etc.  As such there are times where delaying is not the preferred tactic.  If I have less endurance BUT better technique and/or more strength I am better served going "all in" in the hopes I overwhelm him in short order.  If I delay it can actually play into his hands because I either tire and can't delay anymore, and he still has fuel in the tank to destroy me OR he just presses the attack beyond my ability to delay and again, he wins.

Of course if you have a choice one should not face an opponent with more endurance BUT if forced to fight someone with more endurance in a self defense situation, the element of shock/blitz is your best friend.  It's not only what I see as a core tenent of WC but also Krav Maga and more modern fighting systems that are designed around self defense/combatives.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> @Kung Fu Wang sums it up better than I can.  Keeping at opponent at a distance in a fight uses fuel/energy.  The smaller your "tank" the less time you have to devote to anything, whether it be running, delaying, attacking, defending etc.  As such there are times where delaying is not the preferred tactic.  If I have less endurance BUT better technique and/or more strength I am better served going "all in" in the hopes I overwhelm him in short order.  If I delay it can actually play into his hands because I either tire and can't delay anymore, and he still has fuel in the tank to destroy me OR he just presses the attack beyond my ability to delay and again, he wins.
> 
> Of course if you have a choice one should not face an opponent with more endurance BUT if forced to fight someone with more endurance in a self defense situation, the element of shock/blitz is your best friend.  It's not only what I see as a core tenent of WC but also Krav Maga and more modern fighting systems that are designed around self defense/combatives.



Which makes the modern self defence/combatives kind of stupid. Kind of being a one trick pony.


----------



## TMA17

It just means one should train in multiple arts to become more well rounded IMO.


----------



## Flying Crane

TMA17 said:


> It just means one should train in multiple arts to become more well rounded IMO.



Well no.  It actually just just means that if you are interested in training multiple arts, then you are welcome to do so.  If you are not interested in doing so, then don’t.

Either way can have positive and negative aspects and it is up to the individual to decide for himself if the positives outweigh the negatives.

Training in multiple styles is not automatically an improvement over training in one.


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> It just means one should train in multiple arts to become more well rounded IMO.



Or do an art that has more than one tactic. I mean I just don't get why arts designed for people with less physical skills. Have a set of tactics geared towards the guy with more physical skills.

It doesn't take too many sparring sessions with little gloves and an aggressive dude to realize that you don't want to be squared off trading shots.

And it just goes a degree worse bare knuckle.

Why turn a fight into a competition of who has the hardest head?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Or do an art that has more than one tactic. I mean I just don't get why arts designed for people with less physical skills. Have a set of tactics geared towards the guy with more physical skills.
> 
> It doesn't take too many sparring sessions with little gloves and an aggressive dude to realize that you don't want to be squared off trading shots.
> 
> And it just goes a degree worse bare knuckle.
> 
> Why turn a fight into a competition of who has the hardest head?


If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.


----------



## TMA17

All good comments.  I honestly don't know.  I'm only two months into WC (Moy Yat) and I'm enjoying it.  It's so new to me.  My sifu talks about boxing (mentioned Tyson tonight), we spare, talk about martial intelligence and I've seen quite a few very applicable techniques and forms.  We have a few former boxers, karate and taekwondo people in our school.  One guy has been studying the former since he was 8 and feels WC is more effective than his prior arts.  I guess it comes down to the individual and what they prefer.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.



The thing is though it all depends of how the art evolved.  Here are the two most popular "stories" and in either case, while Dave may be right, change the backdrop and things change.

1. A striking art designed by and for a woman to defend herself.  A woman will often find themselves physically overmatched, not only in strength but endurance.  If attacked it will also often be a bltiz attack.  So if you are designing an art for women would you not want something similar to how many WC Lineages or Krav Maga work? Sudden "shock" to injure, disable, disorient etc. and provide an avenue of escape?

2. That the origin is with the Red Boat Opera (or similar river traveling people) themselves.  Boats will have people forced to fight in very close confines, even the pigeon toed stance can be argued to provide a more firm footing on the deck of a rocking boat.  

There is a lot more to either but to look at an art today without knowing when/how/how why it was developed I think is wrong.  One can argue TODAY it should be supplemental, that is why some WC Lineages have changed.  Grand Master William Cheung teaches differently from other YM schools.  Gary Lam.and Or teach differently as well just for this reason, but to say that from it's start it was a supplemental art I think is without evidence.

I will use military tactics again.  As the nature of the battle field changes the tactics change (though sometimes too slowly).  So to say that because Napoleonic tactics we're I'll suited to the US Civil War and WWI would be accurate.  To say such tactics never made sense on their own however would be inaccurate, they did have their time and place it's just that the Generals stubbornly held onto them for too long.


----------



## TMA17

We are taught in some sense to avoid using techniques as ends unto themselves.  Use the movements as a vehicle to develop the martial attributes important to WC - balance, timing/coordination, sensitivity and being relaxed.


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.


I would be cautious to definitively label Wing Chun a striking art or exclude the clinch. As I previously stated the majority of the principles and techniques held in the forms are centered on bridging. I believe this to be the main emphasis of the art, this then allows, one permutations in striking, grappling, throwing or kicking. Personally, I think that the emphasis on striking is a relatively new emphasis based on popular trends of the times. Wing Chun has gone through many evolutions in its short existence. During the Republican era Western Boxing was very, very popular in China. Other than that, I concur with your assesment.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.



It also works in a limited street fighting capacity where the other guy is throwing around, you are throwing straight and you have a bit more ticker than him.

The charlie zelenof basically.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It also works in a limited street fighting capacity where the other guy is throwing around, you are throwing straight and you have a bit more ticker than him.
> 
> The charlie zelenof basically.


“A bit more ticker” - better cardio?


----------



## wckf92

Juany118 said:


> So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.



  Nice!


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> “A bit more ticker” - better cardio?



More heart.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.



And this goes back to the idea that the majority of Wing Chun really has no "long range game".....which people hotly debated with me in the past despite the obvious logic of it all!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> More heart.


Got it. So, you mean more commmitted to the fight, more intensity?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> And this goes back to the idea that the majority of Wing Chun really has no "long range game".....which people hotly debated with me in the past despite the obvious logic of it all!


Clearly, I speak from very little knowledge, but what I’ve seen of WC doesn’t show any long-range tools (though I keep seeing where they would fit, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some branches have some).


----------



## TMA17

I like that WC is a simple art.  It’s not overloaded with too much of any one thing.  To me that’s a draw.  You can always add more to it like any art.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> And this goes back to the idea that the majority of Wing Chun really has no "long range game".....which people hotly debated with me in the past despite the obvious logic of it all!



And yet I still get confused as to how you called TWC "long fist WC" and then say all WC has no long game


----------



## wckf92

Juany118 said:


> And yet I still get confused as to how you called TWC "long fist WC" and then say all WC has no long game



He didnt... he said "majority of wing chun"


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> And yet I still get confused as to how you called TWC "long fist WC" and then say all WC has no long game



That's why I qualified my statement with "majority."  TWC tends to be the exception, very likely because William Cheung also recognized the need and developed it. This is one of the things that sets TWC apart from most other Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM

TMA17 said:


> I like that WC is a simple art.  It’s not overloaded with too much of any one thing.  To me that’s a draw.  You can always add more to it like any art.



Exactly!  All our legendary histories tend to point to the idea that WC was created to be learned relatively quickly as compared to other TCMAs.  That's why it seems a bit off that some modern lineages stretch their curriculum out over so many years.  Spending multiple years on the first form alone is just ridiculous...unless your WC has been elaborated upon to a huge extent that it takes that long to learn even the very basics!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> That's why I qualified my statement with "majority."  TWC tends to be the exception, very likely because William Cheung also recognized the need and developed it. This is one of the things that sets TWC apart from most other Wing Chun.


I know man.  I am finally going to sleep after a 12 hour duty shift followed by court so was just making fun, hence the .  I only make fun, in that almost sad paramilitary manner, of those I respect.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> The thing is though it all depends of how the art evolved.  Here are the two most popular "stories" and in either case, while Dave may be right, change the backdrop and things change.
> 
> 1. A striking art designed by and for a woman to defend herself.  A woman will often find themselves physically overmatched, not only in strength but endurance.  If attacked it will also often be a bltiz attack.  So if you are designing an art for women would you not want something similar to how many WC Lineages or Krav Maga work? Sudden "shock" to injure, disable, disorient etc. and provide an avenue of escape?



This is the real historical origins of the Wu Mei (Ng Mui) legend that was altered and spun into the Wuxia legends of the Republican Era.

Wu Mei - Wikipedia

Wu Zetian - Wikipedia

(Yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't an always reliable source, but in this case, it'll suffice)

The only solid evidence for Wing Chun origins, IMO, lay with Fang Qiniang and the creation of White Crane Boxing at Xiao Lian Si (Siu Lin Ji) - Small Training Temple in Yongtai. This legend is shared by Wing Chun, Bak Hok and Hung Kuen with little alteration. All three arts are structured in a similar manner, rely on the same principles and mechanics, but have evolved to include other aspects. IMO, the only way such cohesive melding can occur is by having a system that allows for it to happen. It is said that the original art developed by Fang Qiniang was a method of San Sik. This method was derived from a base of Lohan Boxing and principles developed from observations of a crane in movement. Take that for what its worth, but to deny it outright in favor of a verifiable false creation story penned by one individual in the Republican Era is a dis-justice to its actual historical tradition. There are many verifiable old documents, by first and second generation students, that detail the history, traditions, theory and principles of Fang Qiniang's art. 



Juany118 said:


> 2. That the origin is with the Red Boat Opera (or similar river traveling people) themselves.  Boats will have people forced to fight in very close confines, even the pigeon toed stance can be argued to provide a more firm footing on the deck of a rocking boat.



Here are some clips of actual _Boat_ Boxing.





















Notice how very different it is to Wing Chun, an assumed boat boxing method.



Juany118 said:


> There is a lot more to either but to look at an art today without knowing when/how/how why it was developed I think is wrong.  One can argue TODAY it should be supplemental, that is why some WC Lineages have changed.  Grand Master William Cheung teaches differently from other YM schools.  Gary Lam.and Or teach differently as well just for this reason, but to say that from it's start it was a supplemental art I think is without evidence.
> 
> I will use military tactics again.  As the nature of the battle field changes the tactics change (though sometimes too slowly).  So to say that because Napoleonic tactics we're I'll suited to the US Civil War and WWI would be accurate.  To say such tactics never made sense on their own however would be inaccurate, they did have their time and place it's just that the Generals stubbornly held onto them for too long.



I agree to an extent, but to try and propagate a narrative based on elements that support a predetermined outcome to an art admittedly modified in recent times is a false narrative. Ignoring key elements because we feel them to be irrelevant, unsupported, or because they contradict previously accepted parameters that support a personal viewpoint and narrative out of convenience, is not approaching the situation objectively.

Above I listed only two examples that blow a wide gaping hole in the accepted narrative concerning Wing Chun. There are many, many more, and if people (who truly want to understand the origins of Wing Chun) quit lying to themselves, they'll come to understand that the "history" they have been taught and the alterations made to support it are only propagated by those trying to protect their own self interests.


----------



## Nobody Important

Just throwing this out there.

What makes more sense, a new method developed to counter hundreds of years of proven fighting techniques, or, a new method developed to help maximize efficiency of those techniques?

Even the oral traditions of Wing Chun state it was developed to be learned quickly and put into practice straight away. If, it was a completely new form of fighting based on the same weapons, i.e.. punch, kick, grab, throw how could it be effectively learned quicker & better than methods that already employ punch, kick, grab, throw? 

Time, repetition & practice are necessary to develop skill. Wing Chun still uses forms to transmit, so that isn't a factor, especially when many schools stretch the learning process out over a long time. That idea contradicts the premise it was founded on.

It makes more sense, IMO, that Wing Chun was developed as a new approach to emphasize refinement of basic gross motor skill in conjunction with simple strategy and tactics. This requires a base to work from. You don't put up drywall before the wall is framed out. You need to know where you are going.

This doesn't mean you are restricted to any particular methodology, as far as, what you are trying to achieve. It simply points out what you need to focus on to improve what methodology you prefer to use, ie, punch, kick, grab, throw. This is seen in arts like Hung Kuen, Bak Hok etc. that use Fang Qiniang's art as a way of elevating certain aspects they prefer to employ.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> This is the real historical origins of the Wu Mei (Ng Mui) legend that was altered and spun into the Wuxia legends of the Republican Era.
> 
> Wu Mei - Wikipedia
> 
> Wu Zetian - Wikipedia
> 
> (Yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't an always reliable source, but in this case, it'll suffice)
> 
> The only solid evidence for Wing Chun origins, IMO, lay with Fang Qiniang and the creation of White Crane Boxing at Xiao Lian Si (Siu Lin Ji) - Small Training Temple in Yongtai. This legend is shared by Wing Chun, Bak Hok and Hung Kuen with little alteration. All three arts are structured in a similar manner, rely on the same principles and mechanics, but have evolved to include other aspects. IMO, the only way such cohesive melding can occur is by having a system that allows for it to happen. It is said that the original art developed by Fang Qiniang was a method of San Sik. This method was derived from a base of Lohan Boxing and principles developed from observations of a crane in movement. Take that for what its worth, but to deny it outright in favor of a verifiable false creation story penned by one individual in the Republican Era is a dis-justice to its actual historical tradition. There are many verifiable old documents, by first and second generation students, that detail the history, traditions, theory and principles of Fang Qiniang's art.
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some clips of actual _Boat_ Boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how very different it is to Wing Chun, an assumed boat boxing method.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to an extent, but to try and propagate a narrative based on elements that support a predetermined outcome to an art admittedly modified in recent times is a false narrative. Ignoring key elements because we feel them to be irrelevant, unsupported, or because they contradict previously accepted parameters that support a personal viewpoint and narrative out of convenience, is not approaching the situation objectively.
> 
> Above I listed only two examples that blow a wide gaping hole in the accepted narrative concerning Wing Chun. There are many, many more, and if people (who truly want to understand the origins of Wing Chun) quit lying to themselves, they'll come to understand that the "history" they have been taught and the alterations made to support it are only propagated by those trying to protect their own self interests.


Ok, I don’t have a dog in this race and so don’t care much about what the real answer is.  However, I will offer an observation or two.

I watched the videos.  First, I don’t see how any of that stuff would be advantageous on a boat where space is likely limited and the footing uncertain from the waves and general shifting motion of the boats deck.  The first video in particular, with the elderly fellow spinning the staff and the trident, I can’t see using that under any circumstances, much less conditions on a boat.  The rest of it all looked like any Shaolin or Lohan method in kind of a generic way, so what is it that makes it a “boat” style, nevermind the label someone put on the video?

Second, even if the stuff in the videos is actually a boat method, that doesn’t mean that wing chun cannot also be one simply based on the differences.  Different people come up with different solutions for a similar situation.  It happens all over the place.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> Just throwing this out there.
> 
> What makes more sense, a new method developed to counter hundreds of years of proven fighting techniques, or, a new method developed to help maximize efficiency of those techniques?
> 
> Even the oral traditions of Wing Chun state it was developed to be learned quickly and put into practice straight away. If, it was a completely new form of fighting based on the same weapons, i.e.. punch, kick, grab, throw how could it be effectively learned quicker & better than methods that already employ punch, kick, grab, throw?
> 
> Time, repetition & practice are necessary to develop skill. Wing Chun still uses forms to transmit, so that isn't a factor, especially when many schools stretch the learning process out over a long time. That idea contradicts the premise it was founded on.
> 
> It makes more sense, IMO, that Wing Chun was developed as a new approach to emphasize refinement of basic gross motor skill in conjunction with simple strategy and tactics. This requires a base to work from. You don't put up drywall before the wall is framed out. You need to know where you are going.
> 
> This doesn't mean you are restricted to any particular methodology, as far as, what you are trying to achieve. It simply points out what you need to focus on to improve what methodology you prefer to use, ie, punch, kick, grab, throw. This is seen in arts like Hung Kuen, Bak Hok etc. that use Fang Qiniang's art as a way of elevating certain aspects they prefer to employ.


If Wing chun was developed as a method to refine other skills that one has already developed through training in a different system, then the methods need to be compatible.

For example, wing chun would not work at all to refine the methods of my system, Tibetan white crane.  The methods are not compatible.  So if there is any truth in this idea, it would be limited to some particular system(s) and definitely not on a wide range of systems.

Just an observation.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I don’t have a dog in this race and so don’t care much about what the real answer is.  However, I will offer an observation or two.
> 
> I watched the videos.  First, I don’t see how any of that stuff would be advantageous on a boat where space is likely limited and the footing uncertain from the waves and general shifting motion of the boats deck.  The first video in particular, with the elderly fellow spinning the staff and the trident, I can’t see using that under any circumstances, much less conditions on a boat.  The rest of it all looked like any Shaolin or Lohan method in kind of a generic way, so what is it that makes it a “boat” style, nevermind the label someone put on the video?
> 
> Second, even if the stuff in the videos is actually a boat method, that doesn’t mean that wing chun cannot also be one simply based on the differences.  Different people come up with different solutions for a similar situation.  It happens all over the place.


True, but, those videos are from an established culture spanning hundreds of years who adamantly state that their method was developed on boats.

Now, let's factor in evolution over time due to social convention and popularity of Wushu, and one can see how adaptations could have been made to conform. This doesn't mean that everything they do is altered, some remnants are bound to be left over.

The Red Boats were floating opera stages. Very little unused space on boat for much of anything. Some have used this for justification of why Wing Chun looks as it does, because of limited space. However , accounts from actual opera performers state that they always practiced their martial arts on land when they docked, and, their opera arts were no different in movement than what you see in those videos. This is historical fact that blows a hole in the "Wing Chun was developed to be used in confined space, like on a boat or in an alley theory".

No accounts prior to Yip Man state that Wing Chun was developed on the opera boats, merely that some opera performers practiced Wing Chun. That's a big difference concerning implications of use.

As a side note, I would argue that a wide stance, like horse stance, would be more practical for keeping balance on a boat than a high narrow pigeon tied one, like goat stance.

The evidence to support the narrative is severely lacking.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> True, but, those videos are from an established culture spanning hundreds of years who adamantly state that their method was developed on boats.
> 
> Now, let's factor in evolution over time due to social convention and popularity of Wushu, and one can see how adaptations could have been made to confirm. This doesn't mean that everything they do is altered, some remnants are bound to be left over.
> 
> The Red Boats were floating opera stages. Very little unused space on boat for much of anything. Some have used this for justification of why Wing Chun looks as it does, because of limited space. However , accounts from actual opera performers state that they always practiced their martial arts on land when they docked, and, their opera arts were no different in movement than what you see in those videos. This is historical fact that blows a hole in the "Wing Chun was developed to be used in confined space, like on a boat or in an alley theory".
> 
> No accounts prior to Yip Man state that Wing Chun was developed on the opera boats, merely that some opera performers practiced Wing Chun. That's a big difference concerning implications of use.
> 
> As a side note, I would argue that a wide stance, like horse stance, would be more practical for keeping balance on a boat than a high narrow pigeon tied one, like goat stance.
> 
> The evidence to support the narrative is severely lacking.


Well honestly the video of the younger fellow with the dao reminds me more of modern Wushu.

If this is one more area where the government got involved in the 1950s, then it could be much altered from what it was.

Either way, the stuff in the videos does not look much different from other stuff generally available.  I don’t see anything there that jumps out at me in any way as being particularly well suited for a boat.  

And again, even if it is, that does not mean that wing chun cannot be also.


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> If Wing chun was developed as a method to refine other skills that one has already developed through training in a different system, then the methods need to be compatible.
> 
> For example, wing chun would not work at all to refine the methods of my system, Tibetan white crane.  The methods are not compatible.  So if there is any truth in this idea, it would be limited to some particular system(s) and definitely not on a wide range of systems.
> 
> Just an observation.


Then you obviously understand little of either method. 

I've been a practitioner of Tibetan White Crane since 1988, under several lineages. There is an enormous amount of cross over in technique alone, not to mention theory. Small 5 Animal, Cotton Needle, & Small Moon Skills present a great deal of Wing Chun methodology. Just because other modes are employed doesn't mean that Wing Chun elements are non-existent. 

There is even a fair amount of history to suggest that Tibetan White Crane is based on elements of Fang Qinang' s art. The only Tibetan elements in Lion's Roar  (Tibetan White Crane, Lama Pai, Hop Gar) is actually the qigong methods based on Skum Nye & Trul Khor, not the martial techniques. These came from a myriad of sources like Tong Bei, Fut Gar & White Crane.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> Then you obviously understand little of either method.
> 
> I've been a practitioner of Tibetan White Crane since 1988, under several lineages. There is an enormous amount of cross over in technique alone, not to mention theory. Small 5 Animal, Cotton Needle, & Small Moon Skills present a great deal of Wing Chun methodology. Just because other modes are employed doesn't mean that Wing Chun elements are non-existent.
> 
> There is even a fair amount of history to suggest that Tibetan White Crane is based on elements of Fang Qinang' s art. The only Tibetan elements in Lion's Roar  (Tibetan White Crane, Lama Pai, Hop Gar) is actually the qigong methods based on Skum Nye & Trul Khor, not the martial techniques. These came from a myriad of sources like Tong Bei, Fut Gar & White Crane.


Ok then.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> wing chun would not work at all to refine the methods of my system, ...


If you can put your arms in your opponent's striking path, his straight punches (such as jab, cross) will be interrupted by your arms. He can only use circular punches (such as hook) around your arms. Comparing with the boxing guard that your opponent's punch can go through between your arms, just that simple WC guard, it already simplifies the fighting complexity into half.

In CMA, you try to control the inside (not outside). When your opponent use hook punch, his center is open. If you know how to take advantage on it, that will be your advantage.

IMO, the best thing that I have learned from the WC system is to use my arms to separate my opponent's arms away from his head. This simple concept is not addressed enough in most CMA systems such as (long fist, preying mantis, Baji, Taiji, ...).


----------



## TMA17

I thought this had some good ideas, although I don’t know how far he is deviating from what some would consider more “pure” WC.  Any thoughts?


----------



## wingchun100

TMA17 said:


> I thought this had some good ideas, although I don’t know how far he is deviating from what some would consider more “pure” WC.  Any thoughts?



Personally, I think there are many moves in Wing Chun that are open to interpretation. If you learn the rules of any style long enough, then you eventually start to "break" them to fit your own needs and abilities.


----------



## TMA17

Would you say his style deviated much from strict WC forms?


----------



## TMA17

I am currently reading Look Beyond the Pointing Finger The Combat Philosophy of Wong Shun Leung by David Peterson.  I wish I would have read this months ago.  This is a must read if you practice WC IMO.  The book addresses pretty much every question I’ve come across on this forum. Outstanding book!


----------



## Juany118

TMA17 said:


> Would you say his style deviated much from strict WC forms?



Since Sifu Keith is the NA Rep for GM William Cheung I would say what is taught at his school fits right in with TWC methodology.  Other Lineages, I could not say.


----------



## TMA17

I like what Mazza does to be honest.  I don't have much experience in WC but from what I see, visually, I like it.  I don't think it's as important to nit pick how one does their WC. If it works, it works.  Keith and TWC have their own way and they do have a very good reputation.


----------



## TMA17




----------



## Martial D

TMA17 said:


> I thought this had some good ideas, although I don’t know how far he is deviating from what some would consider more “pure” WC.  Any thoughts?



I guess if you can find a guy that with throw a half pulled jab then freeze for 11 seconds without moving while you do all that stuff, this could be quite effective!


----------



## Martial D

TMA17 said:


>



Oh man. The only redeeming quality to this is the humour value of tubs mcgee talking about 'realistic fighting' as he demonstrates the complete opposite.

As always, to judge 'realism' you need to watch what the OTHER guy is doing, not the guy doing the demo. Nobody is going to do what the other guy is doing here, ever.


----------



## Headhunter

Depends what you're using it for


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Oh man. The only redeeming quality to this is the humour value of tubs mcgee talking about 'realistic fighting' as he demonstrates the complete opposite.
> 
> As always, to judge 'realism' you need to watch what the OTHER guy is doing, not the guy doing the demo. Nobody is going to do what the other guy is doing here, ever.


A. Have you been to seminars where they are explaining principles via static demonstrations?

B. Second "tubs McGee", as you called him, is actually an SME (Subject Matter Expert, fancy term for Instructor) for the Naval Special Warfare Center (SEALs), US Marine Corps, US Army Special Operations Command and a DoJ as well as NJ Municipal LEO Instructor.  He probably knows a little bit more than you.


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> A. Have you been to seminars where they are explaining principles via static demonstrations?
> 
> B. Second "tubs McGee", as you called him, is actually an SME (Subject Matter Expert, fancy term for Instructor) for the Naval Special Warfare Center (SEALs), US Marine Corps, US Army Special Operations Command and a DoJ as well as NJ Municipal LEO Instructor.  He probably knows a little bit more than you.


Yes, I have seen mountains of 'static demonstrations'. The thing about 'static demonstrations' is you can use them to make any old hokey look good. It's easy to do what you like to a motionless dummy. 

Pretty much any time you see a scenario that involves 'I do this, this, then that' all the while the other guy is frozen in place what you have is some bee ess.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Yes, I have seen mountains of 'static demonstrations'. The thing about 'static demonstrations' is you can use them to make any old hokey look good. It's easy to do what you like to a motionless dummy.
> 
> Pretty much any time you see a scenario that involves 'I do this, this, then that' all the while the other guy is frozen in place what you have is some bee ess.


Well then I don't think you were really watching.  What did he say?

In a real fight
1. Don't get stuck in the middle.
2. Don't use force on force and if your opponent does, first he can end up working against himself and it can also give you an opening to take his balance.

All he did there was use the partner to demonstrate how this CAN work. It wasn't a "this is how you do it" paint by numbers at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Yes, I have seen mountains of 'static demonstrations'. The thing about 'static demonstrations' is you can use them to make any old hokey look good. It's easy to do what you like to a motionless dummy.
> 
> Pretty much any time you see a scenario that involves 'I do this, this, then that' all the while the other guy is frozen in place what you have is some bee ess.


Man, if I ever get attacked by someone who forgets what they are doing mid-attack, I'm going to be frickin' awesome!


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> A. Have you been to seminars where they are explaining principles via static demonstrations?
> 
> B. Second "tubs McGee", as you called him, is actually an SME (Subject Matter Expert, fancy term for Instructor) for the Naval Special Warfare Center (SEALs), US Marine Corps, US Army Special Operations Command and a DoJ as well as NJ Municipal LEO Instructor.  He probably knows a little bit more than you.



A. yes but then they will demonstrate it in resisted drills and then live sparring. Did that happen?

B. lets pretend nobody cares and instead of judging the technique on their resume lets just judge the technique.


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> Well then I don't think you were really watching.  What did he say?
> 
> In a real fight
> 1. Don't get stuck in the middle.
> 2. Don't use force on force and if your opponent does, first he can end up working against himself and it can also give you an opening to take his balance.
> 
> All he did there was use the partner to demonstrate how this CAN work. It wasn't a "this is how you do it" paint by numbers at all.


Yes, I really watched. And yes, I heard what he was saying while he was demonstrating a series of things he could do to a slow motion/frozen opponent.

None of which would work against any sort of resistance. All the other guy had to do to negate that entire series of things was take a step backwards, or to the side, or use his other hand, or, you know..move.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Yes, I really watched. And yes, I heard what he was saying while he was demonstrating a series of things he could do to a slow motion/frozen opponent.
> 
> None of which would work against any sort of resistance. All the other guy had to do to negate that entire series of things was take a step backwards, or to the side, or use his other hand, or, you know..move.


I didn't think he was presenting a series (as in "do this, then that") but a number of options from that frozen point in time.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I didn't think he was presenting a series (as in "do this, then that") but a number of options from that frozen point in time.


Unfortunately time doesn't freeze, and at real time the demo guy would be moving like 'the flash', even to get off any of that. It's all happening when the guy is in mid strike, extended. A split second.

There's a reason why you'll never see this sort of nonsense at full speed and full resistance without cooperation.  It's basically LARPing.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> Unfortunately time doesn't freeze, and at real time the demo guy would be moving like 'the flash', even to get off any of that. It's all happening when the guy is in mid strike, extended. A split second.
> 
> There's a reason why you'll never see this sort of nonsense at full speed and full resistance without cooperation.  It's basically LARPing.



Also likely why we seldom see things like this in sparring.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> Also likely why we seldom see things like this in sparring.


True story.

WC offers a lot of really cool tools, I really do love the art, I hate to seem like such a hater, because I'm really not.

And if someone starts consistently starts pulling off this sort of pure WC in live action I will be the first to congratulate them and henceforth steal their methods for myself.


----------



## TMA17

As I’m reading Beyond the Pointed Finger, I came across a part where WSL said he’s basically against this type of training “if this then do that.”

The key seems to be to learn the forms, balance, speed and sensitivity so you react when need be with whatever is suited for that moment which could be a variety of things.


----------



## Martial D

TMA17 said:


> As I’m reading Beyond the Pointed Finger, I came across a part where WSL said he’s basically against this type of training “if this then do that.”
> 
> The key seems to be to learn the forms, balance, speed and sensitivity so you react when need be with whatever is suited for that moment which could be a variety of things.




The problem is that there's no real way to tell which moves are low percentage without live training, and there's no way to develop the reflexes to pull any of that off without live training.

So if this then <a variety of possible WC techniques> is fine if you have achieved being able to pull them off in a live setting, but if you can not they are all functionally useless.

This begs the question, why are there not live speed, non cooperative demonstrations of these things happening? The answer seems obvious to me.

This is also why I don't put much stock in static demonstrations. Yes, to learn any technique properly will probably require a couple, but you can't tell much about the actual effectiveness that way.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Ron Balicki put out a good DVD series on Panantukan called "Filipino Boxing."   Ron has competed in Shoot Boxing before and still spars regularly.  I don't know if you guys are familiar with Filipino Boxing, but there are a lot of "limb destructions", sweeps, takedowns and such that can get a little intricate.  Ron would periodically feature a segment on his DVDs showing himself free-sparring with a student attempting to show how some of the things he was teaching could be used in sparring.  But what impressed me, was how flowing and cool various things looked when he was teaching them.....and how HARD they actually were to pull off in sparring!   Bottom line.....the simple basics are what can be relied upon.  Anything the least bit "intricate" that takes more than 2 or 3 counts to execute just aren't likely to work unless you are REALLY good at them!   And I think too often Wing Chun people have NOT concentrated on how to make their basic techniques and structure and the system's strategy work in a free-fight situation and they end up abandoning it when sparring.  Chi Sau does NOT teach you that at all!  To develop this takes a "progressive sparring" or "structured sparring" approach.  This would be similar to what Sifu Mazza is showing in that video, but I suspect even what he is showing is simply to "intricate" with too many steps relying upon an unrealistic response from the opponent to work.  But you CAN figure these things out in a "structured sparring" situation where there are some rules, but the partner is expected to react in a more realistic way.  This is the only way to really develop your Wing Chun as a real fighting method.   Forget anything that takes more than 3 counts to execute because it is not likely to work!  Forget anything that assumes the opponent is going to freeze his movement even for a second, because it is not likely to work!  Forget just jumping into the ring and sparring because you are just going to be doing sloppy kickboxing if you have not systematically developed your Wing Chun to work in that kind of scenario.

One example of what I'm talking about is found in Sifu Duncan Leung's schools.   Everyone is geared up to some extent.  They form a circle and each student takes a turn being the guy in the middle of the circle.   Then each person  in the circle one after the other launches a random attack at the guy in the middle that he/she has to defend against and counter.  And around it goes.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Also likely why we seldom see things like this in sparring.



Unless from ulta slick boxers.

Lomenchenco will pin arms.


----------



## TMA17

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Ron Balicki put out a good DVD series on Panantukan called "Filipino Boxing."   Ron has competed in Shoot Boxing before and still spars regularly.  I don't know if you guys are familiar with Filipino Boxing, but there are a lot of "limb destructions", sweeps, takedowns and such that can get a little intricate.  Ron would periodically feature a segment on his DVDs showing himself free-sparring with a student attempting to show how some of the things he was teaching could be used in sparring.  But what impressed me, was how flowing and cool various things looked when he was teaching them.....and how HARD they actually were to pull off in sparring!   Bottom line.....the simple basics are what can be relied upon.  Anything the least bit "intricate" that takes more than 2 or 3 counts to execute just aren't likely to work unless you are REALLY good at them!   And I think too often Wing Chun people have NOT concentrated on how to make their basic techniques and structure and the system's strategy work in a free-fight situation and they end up abandoning it when sparring.  Chi Sau does NOT teach you that at all!  To develop this takes a "progressive sparring" or "structured sparring" approach.  This would be similar to what Sifu Mazza is showing in that video, but I suspect even what he is showing is simply to "intricate" with too many steps relying upon an unrealistic response from the opponent to work.  But you CAN figure these things out in a "structured sparring" situation where there are some rules, but the partner is expected to react in a more realistic way.  This is the only way to really develop your Wing Chun as a real fighting method.   Forget anything that takes more than 3 counts to execute because it is not likely to work!  Forget anything that assumes the opponent is going to freeze his movement even for a second, because it is not likely to work!  Forget just jumping into the ring and sparring because you are just going to be doing sloppy kickboxing if you have not systematically developed your Wing Chun to work in that kind of scenario.
> 
> One example of what I'm talking about is found in Sifu Duncan Leung's schools.   Everyone is geared up to some extent.  They form a circle and each student takes a turn being the guy in the middle of the circle.   Then each person  in the circle one after the other launches a random attack at the guy in the middle that he/she has to defend against and counter.  And around it goes.



Makes a lot of sense.  You touched on something that is very true - simple basics.  Learn them well.  I'd say learning only a few punches very well, a few kicks very well and some ground techniques you would probably be ok in most confrontations.  This goes for any art too.

WC is good self defense. MMA is good sport. Athleticism will almost always prevail regardless of the art


----------



## WcForMe

From my time training from what I have seen Is wing chun is an amazing fighting art. But simply put you can't teach a sheep to be a wolf. Fighting well, correctly relaxed in the moment controlling the adrenal dump using timing, controlling distance just doesn't come naturally to some people. Some people are terrified of the thought of a physical altercation. Wing chun trains your reactions, it takes longer to learn those fine motor skills and for them to stand up under pressure period then say boxing. Boxing is more natural for the majority of people. Lomochenko is an amazing boxer. Over 300 amateur fights with 0 losses. Has 1 loss by a bad decision pro record, that's documented as far as I know. Trained since he was 4, trained traditional Ukrainian folk dancing for 4 years in his youth before he was allowed to box properly so I heard. He also trained Judo and something other things as a youngster again before boxing. To me he looks quite wing chun sometimes. Uses pins, a version of pak da and pak Sao, his footwork to flank to the side is very familiar to me. This now brings me to my point. From what I've seen people that have trained boxing or Thai boxing, kickboxing or some form of stand up fighting system or art can learn wing chun much quicker and use it very very effectively. The reason I personally believe why this is, is because most wing chun sifus don't talk or train game plans, talking and showing about targeting punches, setting up openings with movement, general stragies etc etc. This leads to doing drills probably relatively static in a training stance. I personally believe that the goat stance is training you to build up your muscles and create good posture. It's not a fighting stance until you turn to the left or right coupled with a lack of sparring and pressure testing. Then you expect wing chun to show it has great fighters?

Sparring for me isn't beating each other hard. It doesn't really simulate an actual fight. What it was do is learn about timing, movement, using strategy to create openings with kicks, hands, get in range for elbows and sweeps. Maybe pad up with head guards, boxing or mma gloves, kick shields and pressure test twice a month. All helps that fine refinement of wing chun. In my personal opinion wing chun does not lend itself to actual natural fighters. There's gunna go boxing or mma kickboxing do K1 etc. People that seem to train wing chun now are people that see Ip man the movie and want to learn it. The amount of students I've seen that have does this is crazy. I started wing chun because Bruce lee did it and he's awesome. I'm no better in this regard. But be honest with yourselves are you really that fighter that has a mental ability or have the will and balls to strike when needed. People train wing chun for different reasons. Some love forms and being technical and or traditional as possible. That's fine. I say crack on mate, more people training wing chun the better in my opinion. But don't tell me you can take on world class and battle hardened fighters. I can fight. I'm not the best. I'm humble enough to say probably I'm not really gunna be able to smash up most professional fighters. And why should I with my 2 x 3 hours a week of training and whatever else I can be assed to do a home compared to blood sweat and tears for hours everyday traning to be a fighter. However the average joe that wants trouble or a mugger, or drunken angry guy you gunna be in trouble. For self protection I think wing chun is great. But it all comes down to why do YOU train? If you train to fight fair enough, train for fun or fitness fair enough. Most people if they actually have to fight it's not battle harnded fighters there fighting is it? No it's usually the untrained wild man or windmill punch guy. 

From memory this op was answered in several threads. One was " where's all the warriors gone?" I had a thread that was similar a year ago or so. Look at the new video out from Sifu Mark Phillips which already had a thread on the wing chun section. Look at Sifu Phillip Redmonds YouTube video that was about him training a professional boxer and trainer from a mayweather gym in Las Vegas. That dude picked up a bil Sao pretty quick! The other wing chun Sifu on that video from eastern Europes punches are super impressive. Much harder than the boxers. I'm pretty sure I'm making sense. But it's only based on my personal opinions and from what I have seen.


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> Makes a lot of sense.  You touched on something that is very true - simple basics.  Learn them well.  I'd say learning only a few punches very well, a few kicks very well and some ground techniques you would probably be ok in most confrontations.  This goes for any art too.
> 
> WC is good self defense. MMA is good sport. Athleticism will almost always prevail regardless of the art



MMA is kind of the benchmark for testing martial arts efficiency though If you want to explore as much of the full dynamics as you can of your system without going out and street fighting.

For example MMA gloves won't prevent you using hand trapping effectively. 

The other guy might. But then that is your issue to fix.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Unfortunately time doesn't freeze, and at real time the demo guy would be moving like 'the flash', even to get off any of that. It's all happening when the guy is in mid strike, extended. A split second.
> 
> There's a reason why you'll never see this sort of nonsense at full speed and full resistance without cooperation.  It's basically LARPing.


I agree that much of what is shown in freeze-time doesn't work if they keep moving. However, it's odd to make fun of the use of freeze-time, since literally every coach or instructor I've ever seen uses it. Wrestling coaches use it to show where the opening is for a takedown. BJJ instructors use it to show how the arm is controlled. Karate instructors use it to show the opening for a sweep. Boxing coaches use it to show where the other guy has left an opening in his guard. And so on.

The issue isn't that someone's using freeze-time in his demo. The issue is that some folks don't seem to progress beyond that, to finding out how things work in real-time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> The problem is that there's no real way to tell which moves are low percentage without live training, and there's no way to develop the reflexes to pull any of that off without live training.
> 
> So if this then <a variety of possible WC techniques> is fine if you have achieved being able to pull them off in a live setting, but if you can not they are all functionally useless.
> 
> This begs the question, why are there not live speed, non cooperative demonstrations of these things happening? The answer seems obvious to me.
> 
> This is also why I don't put much stock in static demonstrations. Yes, to learn any technique properly will probably require a couple, but you can't tell much about the actual effectiveness that way.


I think (and this is based on broad observations, not specific to WC) that a lot of times the use of freeze-time simply isn't paired with drills that move fast enough and add the "opponent's" next move (so they don't freeze mid-attack). If you add that next move, it becomes much more difficult to get the timing for the technique (something Drop Bear posted on another thread).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Ron Balicki put out a good DVD series on Panantukan called "Filipino Boxing."   Ron has competed in Shoot Boxing before and still spars regularly.  I don't know if you guys are familiar with Filipino Boxing, but there are a lot of "limb destructions", sweeps, takedowns and such that can get a little intricate.  Ron would periodically feature a segment on his DVDs showing himself free-sparring with a student attempting to show how some of the things he was teaching could be used in sparring.  But what impressed me, was how flowing and cool various things looked when he was teaching them.....and how HARD they actually were to pull off in sparring!   Bottom line.....the simple basics are what can be relied upon.  Anything the least bit "intricate" that takes more than 2 or 3 counts to execute just aren't likely to work unless you are REALLY good at them!   And I think too often Wing Chun people have NOT concentrated on how to make their basic techniques and structure and the system's strategy work in a free-fight situation and they end up abandoning it when sparring.  Chi Sau does NOT teach you that at all!  To develop this takes a "progressive sparring" or "structured sparring" approach.  This would be similar to what Sifu Mazza is showing in that video, but I suspect even what he is showing is simply to "intricate" with too many steps relying upon an unrealistic response from the opponent to work.  But you CAN figure these things out in a "structured sparring" situation where there are some rules, but the partner is expected to react in a more realistic way.  This is the only way to really develop your Wing Chun as a real fighting method.   Forget anything that takes more than 3 counts to execute because it is not likely to work!  Forget anything that assumes the opponent is going to freeze his movement even for a second, because it is not likely to work!  Forget just jumping into the ring and sparring because you are just going to be doing sloppy kickboxing if you have not systematically developed your Wing Chun to work in that kind of scenario.
> 
> One example of what I'm talking about is found in Sifu Duncan Leung's schools.   Everyone is geared up to some extent.  They form a circle and each student takes a turn being the guy in the middle of the circle.   Then each person  in the circle one after the other launches a random attack at the guy in the middle that he/she has to defend against and counter.  And around it goes.


I generally teach the more complex approaches as recovery ("Here's what you can do if you wander over this way, and it takes you this long to get control." or "Here's what you can do if you start this technique and it fails, but you still have control of his bodyweight.") The long steps getting to the finish are training for maintaining control. The finish may or may not be the one you train with that sequence - it's just whichever finish is available when you get there.


----------



## TMA17

There are so many atrocious videos of WC guys that just have no idea of how to fight it's sad. Part of it is what/how they are being taught, and some of it is because they are just not even the slightest bit athletic and maybe go into the art thinking they will become a great fighter by learning these forms.  The over reliance on chain punching, not moving quick enough at different angles and using the other options like elbows and kicks....etc...it's just awful.  WC fights end up being two dudes throwing ridiculous chain punches at one another and seem to forget everything else that is available to them.   I still say it's not the art.

I'm going to be visiting a new place next Wednesday and possibly give WC one last try.  Reason being they seem to engage in sparing and tournaments. 

Sifu Eng
Grandmaster Art E. Eng | U.S. Open Martial Arts Championship

"The USA Wing Chun Kuen Association was founded in 2002 by Grandmaster Art Eng. During the first few years, the organization was comprised of a small group of talented students who would take the on the challenges set forth by the Grandmaster. Participating in the Wong's Kung Fu tournament in Washington D.C for the first time in 2003, the USAWCKA would be named top Wing Chun School of the tournament."

He also knows TKD, Eskrima and Aikido.  I'd like to learn Esrima with the WC.

On another note, I've been to 6 different martial arts/MMA/Boxing places in the last few months and only one I liked. That place was called Mission MMA.  They were reasonably priced.  However, what I've found with most of these places is they don't really teach true Muay Thai.  They teach you western boxing with some kicks.  You essentially end up paying for someone to hold bags so you can practice, which is valuable don't get me wrong but I'm not sure how long that is really worth it.  The other places talk up their boxing but it's essentially cardio kicking boxing.

...and if I find the WC school isn't for me, I'm going to move on to something else.  I'm trying everything out.  I'm lucky where I live has a lot of good options.  The last two places I'd like to try are the JKD Philly Defense School or Krav Maga, which is one of the real legit schools that teach it.

http://www.israelikrav.com/

I'm exhausting all my options before committing and locking into something....sorry rant over.


----------



## TMA17

I've posted this before, but this seems to literally be the only video out there where WC looks good, looks like WC....and works.


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> I've posted this before, but this seems to literally be the only video out there where WC looks good, looks like WC....and works.



Yeah but he uses wing chun backwards.

So you go to class, someone will throw a punch at you, you intercept it, do something funky with the arm and punch them in the face.

And lets just consider this idea that you cant really see punches coming at speed.

So the above just doesn't work. Sorry. You basically have to cover under those conditions.

But if I am putting a flurry on them. Then they basically have to cover and their arms go from being lethal and fast moving to being safe and stationary.

And at that moment I can do funky arm punch them in the face stuff.

Old mate does it. Lomenchenco does it. It is basic fighting mechanics.

Trapping is done either when I force their arms to stop. Or I use distance to force them to step before they strike.


----------



## TMA17




----------



## TMA17

I really like this guy.


----------



## TMA17

Harinder Singh Sabharwal has some great DVDs on WC.  It’s guys like him that know how to make it work.


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


>



Man I seriously think this idea that wing chun will work if you just engage in a meat grinder syle fight is absolutely the wrong way to look at fights.

Screw meatgrinders. I want the shape of my face to stay relatively unchanged.


----------



## TMA17




----------



## DaveB

TMA17 said:


> I really like this guy.



In a few of your posts you've mentioned as some kind of criteria the idea that wing chun should look like wing chun. 

Does this video clarify why that's not really a useful criteria?


----------



## TMA17

I have and I honestly don't know. If I continue to train WC I will at some point have more of an opinion on that.  That video made me re-think the idea that WC had to look just like WC.  I don't have enough experience with it to really say.


----------



## DaveB

TMA17 said:


> I have and I honestly don't know. If I continue to train WC I will at some point have more of an opinion on that.  That video made me re-think the idea that WC had to look just like WC.  I don't have enough experience with it to really say.



I think that the example of boxing in the video is one of the clearest explanations of the difference between basic form and application. 

Forms are only templates. Even drills only capture part of the picture. The ability to find and create openings through striking, distancing and body movement, as well as forcing them through physical manipulation, is 90% of the fight and it's largely the part the forms can't teach.


----------



## TMA17

Great point DaveB.  I've always been a sucker for Kung Fu, probably because I grew up like the rest of us with Bruce Lee. I should probably let that go LOL.  My dad was always into boxing, and I too loved boxing.  I don't have a formal background in martial arts.  I grew up practicing all the basic boxing punches on a heavy bag we had for years.  I became pretty good with my hands in terms of speed and power because that's literally all I did.  When I went to the WC school for 2 months, and spared, I felt very confident and did well against even their most seasoned students.  As we were sparing, I felt it was so linear.  It was head on.  All I would have done in a real situation, is move quickly to either side, and used hooks.  Also, the speed at which one can throw punches renders most of the blocking almost impossible.  WC is a great art and offers a lot, but I think you have to make it your own and take the good that comes from it.  You also need to use more kicking, elbows and just better overall movement.  IMO.

The guys that make WC work - Adam Chan, Orr etc....talk about these things.  Adhering to strictly a traditional approach will likely get you killed in a real fight.  I can't comment though on where structure is lost etc. when you do so because I do not have nearly enough training in WC to know that.

I like this video on forms from Adam Chan:


----------



## Flying Crane

TMA17 said:


> Great point DaveB.  I've always been a sucker for Kung Fu, probably because I grew up like the rest of us with Bruce Lee. I should probably let that go LOL.  My dad was always into boxing, and I too loved boxing.  I don't have a formal background in martial arts.  I grew up practicing all the basic boxing punches on a heavy bag we had for years.  I became pretty good with my hands in terms of speed and power because that's literally all I did.  When I went to the WC school for 2 months, and spared, I felt very confident and did well against even their most seasoned students.  As we were sparing, I felt it was so linear.  It was head on.  All I would have done in a real situation, is move quickly to either side, and used hooks.  Also, the speed at which one can throw punches renders most of the blocking almost impossible.  WC is a great art and offers a lot, but I think you have to make it your own and take the good that comes from it.  You also need to use more kicking, elbows and just better overall movement.  IMO.
> 
> The guys that make WC work - Adam Chan, Orr etc....talk about these things.  Adhering to strictly a traditional approach will likely get you killed in a real fight.  I can't comment though on where structure is lost etc. when you do so because I do not have nearly enough training in WC to know that.
> 
> I like this video on forms from Adam Chan:



I watched these videos, and I think this guy is on the right path.  One point I feel was omitted is when he says that forms are a collection of useful ideas (my paraphrase) that have application use.  In addition to that, in my experience forms also drill things like generation of power, while practicing those useful technical ideas.  I think that idea isn’t often specifically expressed, and therefore can be overlooked.

This has an important impact because often the movement used to drill that power generation can be exaggerated, as a tool for helping someone understand how to make a full body connection with their power generation.  Exaggerated movements can simply help in that understanding.  But this exaggerated movement can be seen as being heavily stylized, and that is where outsiders get the notion that Kung Fu forms are just flowery dance.  As exaggerated movement those techniques are not often as directly applicable, but they are not meant to be, in that format.  Rather, once the power generation is understood, that same power can be done without the exaggeration, and that is how the techniques are really meant to be used.

This is why I say that as long as you understand the principles of the system, meaning things like power generation, then the technique does not need to look any certain way.  A wing chun guy does not need to look like a wing chun guy when he fights.  Fighting can look like anything.  But if his power principles come from his wing chun training, even if the techniques do not look exactly as they do in the forms, he is still using his wing chun.  But outsiders want to make this funny claim that wing chun fighting has to look a certain way or else the wing chun guy has abandoned his system in the chaos of the fight.  That is simply not true.

One other comment:  you state that adhering to a strictly traditional approach will likely get you killed in combat.  I disagree.  I believe that most people, even many people who train in traditional martial arts, do not understand what a traditional approach to training really means and entails.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I watched these videos, and I think this guy is on the right path.  One point I feel was omitted is when he says that forms are a collection of useful ideas (my paraphrase) that have application use.  In addition to that, in my experience forms also drill things like generation of power, while practicing those useful technical ideas.  I think that idea isn’t often specifically expressed, and therefore can be overlooked.
> 
> This has an important impact because often the movement used to drill that power generation can be exaggerated, as a tool for helping someone understand how to make a full body connection with their power generation.  Exaggerated movements can simply help in that understanding.  But this exaggerated movement can be seen as being heavily stylized, and that is where outsiders get the notion that Kung Fu forms are just flowery dance.  As exaggerated movement those techniques are not often as directly applicable, but they are not meant to be, in that format.  Rather, once the power generation is understood, that same power can be done without the exaggeration, and that is how the techniques are really meant to be used.
> 
> This is why I say that as long as you understand the principles of the system, meaning things like power generation, then the technique does not need to look any certain way.  A wing chun guy does not need to look like a wing chun guy when he fights.  Fighting can look like anything.  But if his power principles come from his wing chun training, even if the techniques do not look exactly as they do in the forms, he is still using his wing chun.  But outsiders want to make this funny claim that wing chun fighting has to look a certain way or else the wing chun guy has abandoned his system in the chaos of the fight.  That is simply not true.
> 
> One other comment:  you state that adhering to a strictly traditional approach will likely get you killed in combat.  I disagree.  I believe that most people, even many people who train in traditional martial arts, do not understand what a traditional approach to training really means and entails.


Just picking up one point from here, Michael. I think a lot of forms use exaggeration for two reasons. Firstly, big movements are easier to remember than subtle ones, so students are more likely to approximate correctness. Secondly, it's easier to tell if a student is doing it right if it's exaggerated, so an instructor can oversee a number of students moving through the same form, and quickly spot where someone's making a significant mistake. There may be a third reason, as well: students tend to exaggerate movements when not working with a partner, so they might as well exaggerate them accurately.

I sometimes wish I'd figured a way to put more exaggeration in my forms, because I run into the problems exaggeration avoids.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Just picking up one point from here, Michael. I think a lot of forms use exaggeration for two reasons. Firstly, big movements are easier to remember than subtle ones, so students are more likely to approximate correctness. Secondly, it's easier to tell if a student is doing it right if it's exaggerated, so an instructor can oversee a number of students moving through the same form, and quickly spot where someone's making a significant mistake. There may be a third reason, as well: students tend to exaggerate movements when not working with a partner, so they might as well exaggerate them accurately.
> 
> I sometimes wish I'd figured a way to put more exaggeration in my forms, because I run into the problems exaggeration avoids.


I think those can also be reasons for exaggerated movement. Or why exaggerated movement can be useful even if that was not the original intention behind it.  A lot of this does depend on how the forms were built in the first place.  The skill and knowledge of the person who built them means a lot in the outcome.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I sometimes wish I'd figured a way to put more exaggeration in my forms,...


The main reason for exaggeration is to push your body limitation to the maximum. If you can do a high kick, you should be able to do a low kick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The main reason for exaggeration is to push your body limitation to the maximum. If you can do a high kick, you should be able to do a low kick.


That's not the same as the exaggeration of a hand movement in a form, though.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The main reason for exaggeration is to push your body limitation to the maximum. If you can do a high kick, you should be able to do a low kick.



That's ONE reason, but I'm not sure it's the main reason.
And if you can do high kicks, you SHOULD be able to do a low kick, but it's still important to practice them. I've seen more than one TKD student who was so focused on high kicks that they totally ignore opportunities for low kicks. 
Of course, if they've spent their entire time only doing Olympic sparring, you can pretty much forget about them doing a leg kick, without a bit of re-training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> That's not the same as the exaggeration of a hand movement in a form, though.


He keeps his back arm back to help his body to extend to the maximum. You will never fight like this. This training is the opposite of the WC square shoulder punch training. This is why the long fist system and the WC system are impossible to be integrated together.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Dirty Dog said:


> That's ONE reason, but I'm not sure it's the main reason.
> And if you can do high kicks, you SHOULD be able to do a low kick, but it's still important to practice them. I've seen more than one TKD student who was so focused on high kicks that they totally ignore opportunities for low kicks.
> Of course, if they've spent their entire time only doing Olympic sparring, you can pretty much forget about them doing a leg kick, without a bit of re-training.


This remind me one time I sparred with a TKD guy. I stayed in a very low stance. Later on he refused to spar with he. He said, "You Kung Fu guy's stance are just too low."


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This remind me one time I sparred with a TKD guy. I stayed in a very low stance. Later on he refused to spar with he. He said, "You Kung Fu guy's stance are just too low."



I'd just take that as being polite. You know, bringing your head down where it's easier to reach. 
And, too, very low stances also tend to put the front leg closer to me. Where it's easier to kick.

But to someone who restricts their training, this can be very very confusing.


----------



## KPM

*This has an important impact because often the movement used to drill that power generation can be exaggerated, as a tool for helping someone understand how to make a full body connection with their power generation.  Exaggerated movements can simply help in that understanding.  But this exaggerated movement can be seen as being heavily stylized, and that is where outsiders get the notion that Kung Fu forms are just flowery dance.  As exaggerated movement those techniques are not often as directly applicable, but they are not meant to be, in that format.  Rather, once the power generation is understood, that same power can be done without the exaggeration, and that is how the techniques are really meant to be used.*

----On this point I agree!

*This is why I say that as long as you understand the principles of the system, meaning things like power generation, then the technique does not need to look any certain way.  A wing chun guy does not need to look like a wing chun guy when he fights.  Fighting can look like anything.  But if his power principles come from his wing chun training, even if the techniques do not look exactly as they do in the forms, he is still using his wing chun.  But outsiders want to make this funny claim that wing chun fighting has to look a certain way or else the wing chun guy has abandoned his system in the chaos of the fight.  That is simply not true.*

---On this point I disagree!   If you are generating power in a specific way based upon your system, why would it not look somewhat like your system?  I cannot learn to generate power the Pin Sun Wing Chun way, then throw a punch like a long fist style, and call it "Wing Chun."   If I train to generate power from a somewhat narrow and sunken stance the Wing Chun way, and then end up doing large motions that generate power like a boxer when I spar, then how can I  claim what I am doing is "Wing Chun"?   And if I maintain my somewhat narrow and sunken stance to generate power the Wing Chun way when I spar, would it not then be recognizable as Wing Chun?  Even if not "perfect" Wing Chun?


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> *This has an important impact because often the movement used to drill that power generation can be exaggerated, as a tool for helping someone understand how to make a full body connection with their power generation.  Exaggerated movements can simply help in that understanding.  But this exaggerated movement can be seen as being heavily stylized, and that is where outsiders get the notion that Kung Fu forms are just flowery dance.  As exaggerated movement those techniques are not often as directly applicable, but they are not meant to be, in that format.  Rather, once the power generation is understood, that same power can be done without the exaggeration, and that is how the techniques are really meant to be used.*
> 
> ----On this point I agree!
> 
> *This is why I say that as long as you understand the principles of the system, meaning things like power generation, then the technique does not need to look any certain way.  A wing chun guy does not need to look like a wing chun guy when he fights.  Fighting can look like anything.  But if his power principles come from his wing chun training, even if the techniques do not look exactly as they do in the forms, he is still using his wing chun.  But outsiders want to make this funny claim that wing chun fighting has to look a certain way or else the wing chun guy has abandoned his system in the chaos of the fight.  That is simply not true.*
> 
> ---On this point I disagree!   If you are generating power in a specific way based upon your system, why would it not look somewhat like your system?  I cannot learn to generate power the Pin Sun Wing Chun way, then throw a punch like a long fist style, and call it "Wing Chun."   If I train to generate power from a somewhat narrow and sunken stance the Wing Chun way, and then end up doing large motions that generate power like a boxer when I spar, then how can I  claim what I am doing is "Wing Chun"?   And if I maintain my somewhat narrow and sunken stance to generate power the Wing Chun way when I spar, would it not then be recognizable as Wing Chun?  Even if not "perfect" Wing Chun?


When it comes to real application and you abandon the exaggerated/stylized movement that is often found in the forms, it will look different.  It might look similar, or it might not, and it does not need to.  

The principles are far more important on a foundational level than the techniques themselves.  The principles can manifest in any number of ways, including techniques that do not even look like “proper” techniques.

Honestly there is a whole lot of room to recognize a technique within an application that does not look identical to the form.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> When it comes to real application and you abandon the exaggerated/stylized movement that is often found in the forms, it will look different.  It might look similar, or it might not, and it does not need to.
> 
> The principles are far more important on a foundational level than the techniques themselves.  The principles can manifest in any number of ways, including techniques that do not even look like “proper” techniques.
> 
> Honestly there is a whole lot of room to recognize a technique within an application that does not look identical to the form.



Maybe the disconnect here is that Wing Chun doesn't really have a lot of overly exaggerated moves in the forms.


----------



## TMA17

I read in Look Beyond the Pointing Finger that WSL only used about 3 moves or techniques to win most of his fights and wasn’t even sure if the others worked because he never used them.  Found that interesting.

Related to what Bruce Lee always said.


----------



## Danny T

KPM said:


> ---On this point I disagree!   If you are generating power in a specific way based upon your system, why would it not look somewhat like your system?  I cannot learn to generate power the Pin Sun Wing Chun way, then throw a punch like a long fist style, and call it "Wing Chun."   If I train to generate power from a somewhat narrow and sunken stance the Wing Chun way, and then end up doing large motions that generate power like a boxer when I spar, then how can I  claim what I am doing is "Wing Chun"?   And if I maintain my somewhat narrow and sunken stance to generate power the Wing Chun way when I spar, would it not then be recognizable as Wing Chun?  Even if not "perfect" Wing Chun?


There a lot more to wc than power generation and specific body mechanics at all times. The body structure within the pole work and drills as well as in the last aspect of biu jee is quite different from the structure within snt or ck. One doesn't stay in those structures but rather should be transitioning through them when required. The power generation and moves within are not as condensed as well.




KPM said:


> Maybe the disconnect here is that Wing Chun doesn't really have a lot of overly exaggerated moves in the forms.


Agreed...in most of the system however, there are instances.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Maybe the disconnect here is that Wing Chun doesn't really have a lot of overly exaggerated moves in the forms.


Could be.  My system is probably on the extreme end so it’s more obvious to me.

I still say though, if the principles are in place then there is room for interpretation on the technique itself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Maybe the disconnect here is that Wing Chun doesn't really have a lot of overly exaggerated moves in the forms.


This WC system has a lot of exaggerated moves.


----------



## TMA17

How do you define exaggerated moves?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TMA17 said:


> How do you define exaggerated moves?


Move your body to the maximum. When you

- train, you use large circle and long path. Your mind is in the power generation.
- fight, you use small circle and short path. Your mind is in the speed generation.

Long fist "Gou Lou Cai Shou" in training.






Preying mantis "Gou Lou Cai Shou" in fighting.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This WC system has a lot of exaggerated moves.



But that is not at all typical of Wing Chun.  He is known for using very exaggerated motions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> But that is not at all typical of Wing Chun.  He is known for using very exaggerated motions.


The exaggerated motion is used for training. Nobody will be that short for you to strike near the ground.


----------



## Flying Crane

TMA17 said:


> How do you define exaggerated moves?







This guy is doing a Hop Gar form, a related system to my Tibetan White Crane.

Notice how his non-punching arm withdraws all the way to the back when he punches.  The purpose of that is to train a full body rotation as a primary source of power generation, and pulling the arm all the way back like that helps ingrain the movement. 

That is only part of it, the rotation should also be driven from the feet.

It is unlikely that one can use the punch in this format.  But like I say, it is a training device meant to develop a specific skill.   In actual use you would not withdraw the hand like that, but you still get the power from that rotation of the torso.  The movement becomes smaller and the technique can take on a variety of shapes as long as you are driving your power from the feet and through the torso rotation.  We train big movements in order to do small movements with great effect.

But if this fellow had a real fight and did not use that full withdrawal of the arm, he is still using his Hop Gar.  It would be inaccurate to claim that he must fight with the full arm withdrawal, or else he is not using Hop Gar.  Hop Gar fighting does not need to look like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> When it comes to real application and you abandon the exaggerated/stylized movement that is often found in the forms, it will look different.  It might look similar, or it might not, and it does not need to.
> 
> The principles are far more important on a foundational level than the techniques themselves.  The principles can manifest in any number of ways, including techniques that do not even look like “proper” techniques.
> 
> Honestly there is a whole lot of room to recognize a technique within an application that does not look identical to the form.


An easy example of this (outside WC) is the standard, well-known Karate-style punch, with the deep chambering of the hand prior to punching. That never happens in application, so it doesn't really look much like the practice position, but the power generation is still the same.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Maybe the disconnect here is that Wing Chun doesn't really have a lot of overly exaggerated moves in the forms.


I've always assumed the complex series of hand movements in that one form (what's often referred to as the "hand waving") was somewhat exaggerated compared to the size of the movements in application. Is it not?


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> An easy example of this (outside WC) is the standard, well-known Karate-style punch, with the deep chambering of the hand prior to punching. That never happens in application, so it doesn't really look much like the practice position, but the power generation is still the same.


Exactly.  My system has an even more pronounced version of that same thing.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> I've always assumed the complex series of hand movements in that one form (what's often referred to as the "hand waving") was somewhat exaggerated compared to the size of the movements in application. Is it not?



Not sure which hand movements you are talking about.   

In Pin Sun Wing Chun we do have a set called "Saam Gin Choi."  It is a series of 3 punches.  The  first punch is an exaggerated "long arm" punch similar to what you might find in Hung Kuen.  It is considered a "power punch" or "finishing blow" and is exaggerated in practice to develop the power just as Michael pointed out in that Hop Ga clip.   Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun has a very similar punch.  Ip Man Wing Chun not so much.   But that is one of the few times that a movement is purposefully exaggerated.  It is certainly not the norm.  But I understand what you guys are saying.   But even though the Kyokushin Karate guy  while sparring may not be chambering the non-punching hand all the way back to the hip as he does in his forms, is what he is doing not still recognizable as Karate?


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Not sure which hand movements you are talking about.
> 
> In Pin Sun Wing Chun we do have a set called "Saam Gin Choi."  It is a series of 3 punches.  The  first punch is an exaggerated "long arm" punch similar to what you might find in Hung Kuen.  It is considered a "power punch" or "finishing blow" and is exaggerated in practice to develop the power just as Michael pointed out in that Hop Ga clip.   Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun has a very similar punch.  Ip Man Wing Chun not so much.   But that is one of the few times that a movement is purposefully exaggerated.  It is certainly not the norm.  But I understand what you guys are saying.   But even though the Kyokushin Karate guy  while sparring may not be chambering the non-punching hand all the way back to the hip as he does in his forms, is what he is doing not still recognizable as Karate?


I think that on the street when he is wearing jeans and a tee-shirt and nothing to identify him as a karate guy, while facing down a couple of punks who are demanding a handout, it is just a punch that lands like a sledgehammer.  identifying the source of the training by what the punch looks like during that altercation doesn’t matter.  An educated eye might be able to spot the telltale principles to recognize that the fellow has training of some sort under his belt, but that is a special and unlikely audience.


----------



## Flying Crane

Double post


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Not sure which hand movements you are talking about.
> 
> In Pin Sun Wing Chun we do have a set called "Saam Gin Choi."  It is a series of 3 punches.  The  first punch is an exaggerated "long arm" punch similar to what you might find in Hung Kuen.  It is considered a "power punch" or "finishing blow" and is exaggerated in practice to develop the power just as Michael pointed out in that Hop Ga clip.   Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun has a very similar punch.  Ip Man Wing Chun not so much.   But that is one of the few times that a movement is purposefully exaggerated.  It is certainly not the norm.  But I understand what you guys are saying.   But even though the Kyokushin Karate guy  while sparring may not be chambering the non-punching hand all the way back to the hip as he does in his forms, is what he is doing not still recognizable as Karate?


I think the question is what we try to recognize as Karate. If we expect cues like the deep chamber, it won't look like Karate. If we look for the cues we see in sparring, we're more likely to recognize it. Where there's very little difference between stylized forms and the more "live" drills, I always look to see if the drills are keeping too much of the stylization - like you see in much of Aikido randori. It looks very much like the stylized practice, because it's just another form of stylized practice.

So, if we look at the more stylized version of chi sau, where the arms just trade positions over and over until someone takes an opening, but there's not much movement, and they always return to the trading arms. That's pretty stylized, and I wouldn't expect WC to look like that in sparring. We should be able to recognize WC in live sparring (even against another style), but only if we've seen WC in a reasonably live use. Live boxing doesn't look anything like speedbag work, which is comparable.

EDIT: The hand movements I referred to are in YMWC forms.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I think that on the street when he is wearing jeans and a tee-shirt and nothing to identify him as a karate guy, while facing down a couple of punks who are demanding a handout, it is just a punch that lands like a sledgehammer.  identifying the source of the training by what the punch looks like during that altercation doesn’t matter.  An educated eye might be able to spot the telltale principles to recognize that the fellow has training of some sort under his belt, but that is a special and unlikely audience.


Agreed. If the other person is trained in a striking art, the Karateka is more likely to be recognizable (to someone equipped to recognize them), because he'll look more like he looks in sparring when the fight turns into something more resembling sparring. The exceptions to this would be arts that train specific attacks, when responding to those attacks. If they trained them reasonably realistically, then their responses on the street should bear some resemblance to the most realistic drills (though probably not to the original teaching version).

I've stated in another thread that I also think what we're defending against changes what we look like. I'll have different movement defending against a wrestler than a boxer.


----------



## ipmann97

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


I always believed that Wing Chun was a style of defence with the ability to attack on defence. Personally I only see Wing Chun necessary to use is when someone is coming at you, not the other way around or else it just seems like a sport. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ipmann97 said:


> I always believed that Wing Chun was a style of defence with the ability to attack on defence. Personally I only see Wing Chun necessary to use is when someone is coming at you, not the other way around or else it just seems like a sport.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


The difference between sport and combat isn't whether you are defending or attacking. In many cases, it's good self-defense to pre-empt the attack, or to attack back in a moment when they back off their attack.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> A. yes but then they will demonstrate it in resisted drills and then live sparring. Did that happen?
> 
> B. lets pretend nobody cares and instead of judging the technique on their resume lets just judge the technique.




Then see my other response.  He isn't teaching a technique, he is teaching two basic principles.  The video is even called "principles."


A. Don't stay in the middle.
B. Don't use force against force and if your opponent does exploit the most obvious of side effects, loss of balance and the fact that, if you are out of the middle, the opponent is actually fighting against his own body, which contributes to the former.

@KPM I think we rarely see it in WC vs WC sparing simply because both sides are fighting using the same principle (never meet force with force.) This leads to each fighter, if equally matched, to essentially cancel each other out.  However you do see it.  Go back to that video I showed a while back of Sifu Jerry and put it on slowmo.  I found this one.  Start at :20.






For the first KO you don't simply see him trap, you see that he moves out of the center initially and, with the forward pressure of his initial trap, takes the balance from his opponent opponent because his opponent screws up.  Instead of using footwork, which Sifu Keith illustrated in the video above, his opponent tries to resist with strength and the oppomentends up being forced off balance backwards.  The opponent then tries to recover but again, since he is trying to use strength, Sifu Jerry, as he uses footwork, pulls him off balance forward.  This causes the opponent to essentially fall into Sifu Jerry's punch.  

Is it as pretty as Sifu Keith makes it out? Nope, fights are never that pretty in my experience, BUT the principles Sifu Keith was talking about are clearly evident in that encounter.

(PS I don't speak to any of the other fights in the video.  That was simply the only one I could find with Sifu Jerry at MUSU that went "slow mo" so you could see the principles of footwork and taking advantage of the opponent going "force on force.")


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I didn't think he was presenting a series (as in "do this, then that") but a number of options from that frozen point in time.



More so just some generic options to illustrate the principles I noted above.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Then see my other response. He isn't teaching a technique, he is teaching two basic principles. The video is even called "principles."
> 
> 
> A. Don't stay in the middle.
> B. Don't use force against force and if your opponent does exploit the most obvious of side effects, loss of balance and the fact that, if you are out of the middle, the opponent is actually fighting against his own body, which contributes to the former.



So no he never showed that live?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So no he never showed that live?



Has he?  Yeah admittedly, more so in the past however.  Largely because unlike some Martial Arts instructors his full time job is instructing in both Martial Arts/Combatives, firearms, tactics and security audits/trainings with a lot of traveling. 

You tend to start "just" teaching, and allow the instructors under you do the bulk of the "real" demonstration/sparring, when a "bad day" on the mat can be the difference between you getting on the plane to go train a Corporation or Agency and losing that money because you tore something. /Shrug.

That's one of the reasons I included the video I did as it shows the principles described in action.  Sifu Jerry, a provisional Master himself, is a student of both Sifus in the video that sparked this part of the discussion.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Has he?  Yeah admittedly, more so in the past however.  Largely because unlike some Martial Arts instructors his full time job is instructing in both Martial Arts/Combatives, firearms, tactics and security audits/trainings with a lot of traveling.
> 
> You tend to start "just" teaching, and allow the instructors under you do the bulk of the "real" demonstration/sparring, when a "bad day" on the mat can be the difference between you getting on the plane to go train a Corporation or Agency and losing that money because you tore something. /Shrug.
> 
> That's one of the reasons I included the video I did as it shows the principles described in action.  Sifu Jerry, a provisional Master himself, is a student of both Sifus in the video that sparked this part of the discussion.



How much does he charge for a seminar? I know a guy Rob Gruifridda who is elite level, full time and will mix in. I would have suggested that is really not the standard.

Even our local rbsd guy Paul Cale mixes in I think. And he trains the army. I might ask him.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> How much does he charge for a seminar? I know a guy Rob Gruifridda who is elite level, full time and will mix in. I would have suggested that is really not the standard.
> 
> Even our local rbsd guy Paul Cale mixes in I think. And he trains the army. I might ask him.



His prices change depending on the topic/length etc.  I think his next "ope " seminar is $200 per person.  That is going to be a pistol and combat stress work shop but then there is also a $50 one on conditioning, core work and massage to enhance fighting fitness and flexibility 

Also his seminars are not always "pure" Wing Chun, they will simply adhere to the principles.  As an example it would just make no sense to try and teach WC to LEOs the way you do students in a dedicated school.  The videos that pop up on YouTube though are from the WC school.   In my experience paying organizations arent fans of what they pay for ending up on YouTube.


----------



## TMA17




----------



## TMA17

Just an observation on this dead horse topic:  after spending some time at 3 different WC schools, I would say that the type of student at a WC school vs that of an MMA/boxing gym is much different with the former being much less “in shape” with a different focus.  That alone would lead to a different end result in terms of fighters produced.  There seems to be more of an intellectual curiosity within the WC crowd.  Whether it’s grounded in reality I don’t know.  Boxing will always be the “sweet science.”

Your average MMA fighter is 90% of the time in better shape than your average WC guy.  That clearly plays a part in why we see so many lopsided YouTube videos along with other reasons of course.


----------



## James.H1515

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


Wing chun is supposed to look like the form because of structure reason, all teachers teach different but what's important is that wing chun is very complicated art when learning a misconception that is easy because it's simple it's simple in terms of no fancy movements.
Wing chun has only failed those who under pressure cant perform because they have not trained under pressure or train under a teacher with bad knowledge of wing chun. 


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## James.H1515

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The advantage of YZKYM is both of your fists can have the same reach. But you can do that with "cross stance" - right leg forward with left hand forward.
> 
> I have always believed that the YZKYM has the following weakness:
> 
> - Both legs are too close and vulnerable for "double legs".
> - Heel pointing out and vulnerable for "foot sweep".
> - Inward bending knee joint is vulnerable for side kick.
> - Open your chest and belly for kick.
> - Prevent you from turning your body to have "maximum reach".
> - ...
> 
> So why train YZKYM if you don't use it in fighting?
> 
> The WC system was created in the south part of China. There were not many wrestlers there. The YZKYM is a good stance to maintain balance on boat. But on the dry land, that's different story.


Very good theory but the yzkym is only used in the form to learn and in movies to show it's wing chun as in just posing.
From what I've learnt yzkym has it's practice use not as a stance but for example to press opponents etc but now a days a lot of so called wing chun practitioners use this stance for show 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## James.H1515

Martial D said:


> At the risk of offending pretty much everyone..yes..yes it is. I see wing Chun as a condiment rather than a meal as it pertains to combat.
> 
> By that I mean it contains many useful and deadly principles that are very much useful for fighting, but the classical approach isn't too effective. The centerline guard doesn't work against anyone that can box, the footwork is too immobile,  and it is too limited in approach vis a vis any range besides trapping range.
> 
> With all that said, I absolutely love WC as a tool to break out just as soon as tie up/trapping range happens, and WC punching is easily modified for longer range hand attacks and quicker footwork(think jkd)


Good theory but wing chun is not all about trapping lot of people assume this or maybe they were only taught trapping.
 there's gor sau techniques for going against boxing style etc.
Gor sau I believe means crossing hands not the same as trapping.


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## James.H1515

TMA17 said:


> Just an observation on this dead horse topic:  after spending some time at 3 different WC schools, I would say that the type of student at a WC school vs that of an MMA/boxing gym is much different with the former being much less “in shape” with a different focus.  That alone would lead to a different end result in terms of fighters produced.  There seems to be more of an intellectual curiosity within the WC crowd.  Whether it’s grounded in reality I don’t know.  Boxing will always be the “sweet science.”
> 
> Your average MMA fighter is 90% of the time in better shape than your average WC guy.  That clearly plays a part in why we see so many lopsided YouTube videos along with other reasons of course.


That maybe true about fitness but wing chun is designed for everyone in terms of fitness.
Even a old man or fat or skinny boy should be able to deffend himself a little better.
Every one gets old and loses muscle or gains weight and don't go gym etc but wing chun can still be used 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Martial D

James.H1515 said:


> Good theory but wing chun is not all about trapping lot of people assume this or maybe they were only taught trapping.
> there's gor sau techniques for going against boxing style etc.
> Gor sau I believe means crossing hands not the same as trapping.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk



Yes I am aware there is more to the WC syllabus than trapping. However, making the classical approach work in alive combat or sparring is quite a different animal than drilling things with a compliant partner.

PS I think you mean gwoh sau.


----------



## James.H1515

Martial D said:


> Yes I am aware there is more to the WC syllabus than trapping. However, making the classical approach work in alive combat or sparring is quite a different animal than drilling things with a compliant partner.
> 
> PS I think you mean gwoh sau.


What the classical approach? It really depends on the person using the art and how they're taught.
Ive seen WC work in both real and sparring but if u have a sparring match with boxing gloves on wing chun won't work.
I guess If it doesn't work for you then it doesn't work another art maybe suit you better.
WC can be a complicated art and what I've found out is some will try over complicate things by using advance movement and not keeping it simple.
Ps. Doesn't matter if u spell it gwor sau or gor sau as long as you understand because it's not the real way to write it any way it's romanised to the sound in Chinese just like some will write wing chun or Wing tsun. 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Martial D

The variations in spelling are actually due to various lineage masters issuing patents and copyrights, but ya.

Anyway I feel no impetus to spoil any beliefs you might have. I've been practicing WC(among other things) since the mid nineties, I only speak from experience. I've yet to see anyone make pure stand alone Wing Chun work in alive combat/sparring/fighting.

At trapping range it really does add some nice tricks though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> The variations in spelling are actually due to various lineage masters issuing patents and copyrights, but ya.
> 
> Anyway I feel no impetus to spoil any beliefs you might have. I've been practicing WC(among other things) since the mid nineties, I only speak from experience. I've yet to see anyone make pure stand alone Wing Chun work in alive combat/sparring/fighting.
> 
> At trapping range it really does add some nice tricks though.


Persnickety comment: I think you meant trademarks and servicemarks.


----------



## TMA17

Martial D said:


> Anyway I feel no impetus to spoil any beliefs you might have. I've been practicing WC(among other things) since the mid nineties, I only speak from experience. I've yet to see anyone make pure stand alone Wing Chun work in alive combat/sparring/fighting.
> 
> At trapping range it really does add some nice tricks though.



Unfortunately I think that is the case.  The Sifu at the TWC school I attended know this, which is why he blends in other punches from other systems and other footwork.  

The Moy Yat guys insist on maintain and perfecting structure, because that is how WC works in their eyes.  I think they are both right, but some say you can't have it both ways.

I can see WC working in a situation where a guy gets in your face and pushes you or starts from that distance where you could theoretically trap/punch and attack fast and hard.  On the flip side, any fast punch or dodging method would also work too.


----------



## Martial D

TMA17 said:


> Unfortunately I think that is the case.  The Sifu at the TWC school I attended know this, which is why he blends in other punches from other systems and other footwork.
> 
> The Moy Yat guys insist on maintain and perfecting structure, because that is how WC works in their eyes.  I think they are both right, but some say you can't have it both ways.
> 
> I can see WC working in a situation where a guy gets in your face and pushes you or starts from that distance where you could theoretically trap/punch and attack fast and hard.  On the flip side, any fast punch or dodging method would also work too.


Agreed. For me, WC "works" in those situations where the guy is beaking off to you inches from your face, or grabs your shirt or your arms, or in a scramble when your tied up like in a hockey fight. Sure there are other solutions at that range too, but I naturally fall into WC in those moments, similar to how I fall back to BJJ and try to sweep if someone gets on top of me, or do a wrestling sprawl when someone tries to get my legs.


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> Just an observation on this dead horse topic:  after spending some time at 3 different WC schools, I would say that the type of student at a WC school vs that of an MMA/boxing gym is much different with the former being much less “in shape” with a different focus.  That alone would lead to a different end result in terms of fighters produced.  There seems to be more of an intellectual curiosity within the WC crowd.  Whether it’s grounded in reality I don’t know.  Boxing will always be the “sweet science.”
> 
> Your average MMA fighter is 90% of the time in better shape than your average WC guy.  That clearly plays a part in why we see so many lopsided YouTube videos along with other reasons of course.



BJJ is full of nerds though. If hard training is part of the culture people will accept it as normal.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> BJJ is full of nerds though. If hard training is part of the culture people will accept it as normal.



Yeah, but in my limited experience,  most nerdy-geeky professional types, especially those over 50, don't enjoy training that hard and competing against a resisting opponent in a _striking _art. You can test a student and give resistance more safely in grappling arts. 

So these guys might be fine pushing their limit in drills, but never really spar much. At 62, I can totally understand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> BJJ is full of nerds though. If hard training is part of the culture people will accept it as normal.


I'd argue that people select the environment that suits them. If you train really hard, you'll generally get people who are okay with (or even excited about) training really hard. If you spar hard, you'll get people who like to spar hard.

If you take a gentler approach, you'll get people who want a gentler approach. Change that, and you end up changing the people.


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> Yeah, but in my limited experience,  most nerdy-geeky professional types, especially those over 50, don't enjoy training that hard and competing against a resisting opponent in a _striking _art. You can test a student and give resistance more safely in grappling arts.
> 
> So these guys might be fine pushing their limit in drills, but never really spar much. At 62, I can totally understand.


I have had more injuries grappling than I have had in striking.


----------



## geezer

Danny T said:


> I have had more injuries grappling than I have had in striking.



I agree. Especially joint injuries. And the back. I've messed up both! Maybe it's a matter of perception. Somehow striking is scarier to a lot of people. As is the thought of showing up to work with your face bruised up ...or concussed. Heck I'm running low on brain cells already.


----------



## James.H1515

I respect all the comments about wing chun but what I don't understand is this range business? 
Wing chun has many ranges for combat I mean the arms and legs can only stretch so much to call is long distance any way.
Any distances you would have to close in any way to make contact.
Please tell me more about your experiences.



Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Martial D

Danny T said:


> I have had more injuries grappling than I have had in striking.


Not only that, but the injuries you'll get from striking generally heal up in a much shorter amount of time. I'll take 5 back to back bruised shinbones and black eyes before I'll take a torn or dislocated anything.


----------



## James.H1515

TMA17 said:


> Unfortunately I think that is the case.  The Sifu at the TWC school I attended know this, which is why he blends in other punches from other systems and other footwork.
> 
> The Moy Yat guys insist on maintain and perfecting structure, because that is how WC works in their eyes.  I think they are both right, but some say you can't have it both ways.
> 
> I can see WC working in a situation where a guy gets in your face and pushes you or starts from that distance where you could theoretically trap/punch and attack fast and hard.  On the flip side, any fast punch or dodging method would also work too.


Out of interest what sort of punches are you speaking of and footwork?


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> Maybe it's a matter of perception. Somehow striking is scarier to a lot of people. As is the thought of showing up to work with your face bruised up ...or concussed. Heck I'm running low on brain cells already.


This is my experience as well...when it comes to grappling I'm am particular with who I roll with because of the potential for injuries.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Not only that, but the injuries you'll get from striking generally heal up in a much shorter amount of time. I'll take 5 back to back bruised shinbones and black eyes before I'll take a torn or dislocated anything.


Agreed, though oddly, I'm much more brazen about courting the latter than getting bruised on my face.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, though oddly, I'm much more brazen about courting the latter than getting bruised on my face.


Nobody likes getting whacked in the chops.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Nobody likes getting whacked in the chops.


Nobody likes a dislocated finger, either. I think we’d all rationally choose a bruised face (a few days of healing) over a finger that might never be quite right. Emotionally, though, I tend to avoid the bruised face much more vigorously.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> Nobody likes a dislocated finger, either. I think we’d all rationally choose a bruised face (a few days of healing) over a finger that might never be quite right. Emotionally, though, I tend to avoid the bruised face much more vigorously.



Well... to keep it fair you need to compare apples to apples. So dislocated finger vs broken jaw.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Well... to keep it fair you need to compare apples to apples. So dislocated finger vs broken jaw.


Those would be more comparable, but I’ve never seen a broken jaw happen in the dojo. Broken hands, broken feet, dislocated fingers and toes- but no broken jaw, just bruises and an occasional bloody nose.


----------



## TMA17

James.H1515 said:


> Out of interest what sort of punches are you speaking of and footwork?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk



The Sifu’s fight workshop incorporated uppercuts, jabs, crosses and being light on your feet.  No rooted stance.  It was boxing mixed with WC.  The WC element was paks, chain punches and other WC blocks.  I was surprised how much non WC was used but at the same time I wasn’t because I know how he tends to think.


----------



## James.H1515

TMA17 said:


> The Sifu’s fight workshop incorporated uppercuts, jabs, crosses and being light on your feet.  No rooted stance.  It was boxing mixed with WC.  The WC element was paks, chain punches and other WC blocks.  I was surprised how much non WC was used but at the same time I wasn’t because I know how he tends to think.


How long have you been studying WC? In my lineage it also has uppercut jabs and crosses but it's all hidden in the form for example in chun kiu shows a clear uppercut crosses are in the drills also jabs are just straight line punch with wo sau hand.
Not taken from boxing but it's genuine wing chun I'm just speaking for my lineage.
The only thing different is the light on your feet that seems different.


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## TMA17

I haven’t been studying long at all.  3 months.  I’ve heard others say what you said.


----------



## James.H1515

TMA17 said:


> I haven’t been studying long at all.  3 months.  I’ve heard others say what you said.


Well 3 months is very very early stage. The difference between WC and some thing like boxing is that the WC art is very complicated and has a lot of different hand shape and structure I mean if you trained for 3 years I would still consider that a beginner level the understanding of WC is difficult.
I'm not saying boxing is not difficult but different by the means of you learn like 6 different punches and practice them not including body and foot work but to compare to WC you have got  different punches and palm, fingers and hand elbow moves much more than boxing.
Don't forget WC is a system so if you and me had the same teacher our art would or might look different.
The techniques will change depending on your opponent so for example if against a boxer type person who retracts their hands you would have to use a lot of goh sau techniques not saying it's easy but you won't try use sticky concept unless your on that level.
At your 3 months stage I wouldn't expect to be learning much tho as in just very basic structure work and your single hand drills etc.
Also the reason why a lot of WC practitioners lose fights is because 1 they collapse under pressure because they have so much techniques to practice and don't train enough in pressure fighting but when you fully understand the system it is very effective.
Boxers on the other hand learn their techniques and they practise by sparring that's why boxers are so good.
I guess every art is good but depends on person using it.
If you have doubt in your techniques you would most likely lose in the fight.


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## TMA17

My opinion doesn't have much weight being I've only studied for 3 months.  However, I do often wonder if the system itself is just not as good.  Should it take that long to really be effective?  I'd also expect to see more people using it in real videos.  Those are sparse.  WSL said he only ever used 3 of the WC moves to win most of his fights.  

Boxers are good also because they move well, throw fast punches and are conditioned.  But the simplicity of boxing, it in terms of limited punches and having no kicks, can also be viewed as a benefit.


----------



## TMA17




----------



## Gerry Seymour

TMA17 said:


>


That video is like most technique demonstrations. It sets up the scenario, and the practitioner knows the space and what is coming. Based on that, you can  win a fight with a right-handed block.


----------



## Cephalopod

gpseymour said:


> That video is like most technique demonstrations. It sets up the scenario, and the practitioner knows the space and what is coming. Based on that, you can  win a fight with a right-handed block.


Actually I disagree with that.
Assuming that the guys he selected are not actually paid actors, they are anything but compliant ukes.
True, he controlled certain variables: they all wear gloves and go for the face; he has enough room to move around and evade.
While he did not exactly choose giants to go up against, he had no idea what patterns and speeds they would come on with.
I was damn impressed by his ability to control distance and the timing of his bobs and weaves.
In the ways of youtube demonstrations I'd say that this was pretty darn fine.


----------



## TMA17

I’d say it’s something worthwhile to practice!


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Well... to keep it fair you need to compare apples to apples. So dislocated finger vs broken jaw.



breaking my hand was pretty anoying by the way. (grappling)


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> My opinion doesn't have much weight being I've only studied for 3 months.  However, I do often wonder if the system itself is just not as good.  Should it take that long to really be effective?  I'd also expect to see more people using it in real videos.  Those are sparse.  WSL said he only ever used 3 of the WC moves to win most of his fights.
> 
> Boxers are good also because they move well, throw fast punches and are conditioned.  But the simplicity of boxing, it in terms of limited punches and having no kicks, can also be viewed as a benefit.



It is really akward to try to block and punch at the same time. I do it in boxing but it has a limited use. I just cant see combinations coming fast enough to get the positions in time for them to make them work.

Head movement means I can punch with both hands where blocking and punching means I can only punch with one.

Now the sneaky trick with head movement is I can move to where they probably are not going to hit me. And that means I can be moving there before they attack. Rather than seeing a punch working out a defence then seeing the next punch and so on.

There is a whole bunch of really important things like timing and cardio and creating openings that a lot of martial arts do not spend enough time on. Believing that technique is worth more bang for buck.

You get this with the groin kick crowd a lot.

The correct technique for groin kicking probably. I dont know because it doesnt matter that much.





MMA groin kicks which I imagine were not trained and have no specific technique.





And my view is that I will have better results learning to set up any kick rather than train the perfect groin kick. In that I will out groin kick a groin kick specialist.

All of this means that the training they are doing in the top video is time wasting.(mostly)

And why sports fighters are good at fighting in months that take other systems years.


----------



## James.H1515

TMA17 said:


> My opinion doesn't have much weight being I've only studied for 3 months.  However, I do often wonder if the system itself is just not as good.  Should it take that long to really be effective?  I'd also expect to see more people using it in real videos.  Those are sparse.  WSL said he only ever used 3 of the WC moves to win most of his fights.
> 
> Boxers are good also because they move well, throw fast punches and are conditioned.  But the simplicity of boxing, it in terms of limited punches and having no kicks, can also be viewed as a benefit.


Yes I agree boxing is effective like I said because of the simplicity of the techniques, you have to remember martial arts take very long time to master! if u want an effective art that you can use quickly I might suggest studying boxing or muay Thai or sumfin similar.
When studying some thing you must have the heart to learn or why bother learn at all if in doubt ask the teacher or move to an art that makes you feel comfortable. 
WC takes years to refine and practice. On YouTube most wing chun practitioners seem to have very little knowledge or can not apply WC when pressured. All I see on WC are chain punches and that's all that's only one technique out of many.
Remember WC is very effective as well because it has fast direct moves but very complicated forms that take long time to master.


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## wckf92

James.H1515 said:


> ...or *sumfin* similar.



 new word of the day hahaha


----------



## James.H1515

drop bear said:


> It is really akward to try to block and punch at the same time. I do it in boxing but it has a limited use. I just cant see combinations coming fast enough to get the positions in time for them to make them work.
> 
> Head movement means I can punch with both hands where blocking and punching means I can only punch with one.
> 
> Now the sneaky trick with head movement is I can move to where they probably are not going to hit me. And that means I can be moving there before they attack. Rather than seeing a punch working out a defence then seeing the next punch and so on.
> 
> There is a whole bunch of really important things like timing and cardio and creating openings that a lot of martial arts do not spend enough time on. Believing that technique is worth more bang for buck.
> 
> You get this with the groin kick crowd a lot.
> 
> The correct technique for groin kicking probably. I dont know because it doesnt matter that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA groin kicks which I imagine were not trained and have no specific technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my view is that I will have better results learning to set up any kick rather than train the perfect groin kick. In that I will out groin kick a groin kick specialist.
> 
> All of this means that the training they are doing in the top video is time wasting.(mostly)
> 
> And why sports fighters are good at fighting in months that take other systems years.


The thing is when do you or ever seen some one punch two hands at same time any way? Even if you block there's different types of blocks btw you can retract to punch 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## James.H1515

wckf92 said:


> new word of the day hahaha


Lol new word? Maybe, it's just shortened instead of writing the whole word.
You must be an much older generation we use this when we text or type messages makes typing so much faster.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Martial D

James.H1515 said:


> Lol new word? Maybe, it's just shortened instead of writing the whole word.
> You must be an much older generation we use this when we text or type messages makes typing so much faster.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk



RIP English language.


----------



## James.H1515

Martial D said:


> RIP English language.


Wow look at that I've  offended so many "ppl" (people) with my typing "lol" (laugh out loud)
Didn't know I was being judged for my English or is it because you don't have any thing else to discuss about in terms of martial arts so you turn it on my excellent typing skills?
I could be dyslexic and use shorten words to help me write.
Don't worry though I feel the same on some things ( RIP TRUE WC ) learnt and diluted by fakes ones that talk like they know WC!

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## TMA17

Sifu Justin Och looks like he has a good program down in Lakeland, FL.

Master Sifu Justin Och - Chief Wing Chun Instructor


----------



## TMA17

Notice how aggressive he is.  One thing I've observed with WC guys is they are too soft.  Not enough aggressiveness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And my view is that I will have better results learning to set up any kick rather than train the perfect groin kick. In that I will out groin kick a groin kick specialist.


Amen to that, brother.


----------



## Martial D

James.H1515 said:


> Wow look at that I've  offended so many "ppl" (people) with my typing "lol" (laugh out loud)
> Didn't know I was being judged for my English or is it because you don't have any thing else to discuss about in terms of martial arts so you turn it on my excellent typing skills?
> I could be dyslexic and use shorten words to help me write.
> Don't worry though I feel the same on some things ( RIP TRUE WC ) learnt and diluted by fakes ones that talk like they know WC!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


Lazy writing generally stems from lazy thinking, as the bulk of this post seems to further indicate.

That will be all.


----------



## Martial D

TMA17 said:


> Notice how aggressive he is.  One thing I've observed with WC guys is they are too soft.  Not enough aggressiveness.


The problem with a lot of WC guys that try to fight is that they are uncomfortable in the pocket due to a lack of contact training.

In the pocket is where WC happens. You can see the problem.


----------



## TMA17

Good point.  I was watching some of Och's videos.  He's a guy that I think makes WC work.  He's aggressive, has forward pressure, and enters the pocket as you mentioned.


----------



## James.H1515

Martial D said:


> Lazy writing generally stems from lazy thinking, as the bulk of this post seems to further indicate.
> 
> That will be all.


Sure thing! I see your quite narrow minded IF referring to me.
It takes longer for me to type and check the dictionary to write properly so I shorten it.
Why you judging me based on my writing and calling me lazy have I truly offended you even if I was to "lazy" to type?


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## TMA17

I've heard Sifu's say many misconstrue training drills with fight applications, which seems common in WC.  Hands forward, chin up for example.  Styles make fights.


----------



## TMA17

Good answer at 37:15


----------



## yak sao

TMA17 said:


> Sifu Justin Och looks like he has a good program down in Lakeland, FL.
> 
> Master Sifu Justin Och - Chief Wing Chun Instructor



Had the opportunity to cross hands with him a few years ago when he was in my neck of the woods.
A very nice guy with solid skills.


----------



## drop bear

James.H1515 said:


> The thing is when do you or ever seen some one punch two hands at same time any way? Even if you block there's different types of blocks btw you can retract to punch
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk



One after the other. Not at the same time.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> The problem with a lot of WC guys that try to fight is that they are uncomfortable in the pocket due to a lack of contact training.
> 
> In the pocket is where WC happens. You can see the problem.



Fighting in the pocket takes a specialised skill set. I tend to avoid it because I have to take more punches to my head than I would like.

And I like my head the way it is.

We have so e guys who do it and they may win but they always cop a panel beating.


----------



## Juany118

James.H1515 said:


> Wing chun is supposed to look like the form because of structure reason, all teachers teach different but what's important is that wing chun is very complicated art when learning a misconception that is easy because it's simple it's simple in terms of no fancy movements.
> Wing chun has only failed those who under pressure cant perform because they have not trained under pressure or train under a teacher with bad knowledge of wing chun.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk



Then why does the NA head of my lineage of Wing Chun say, "you do not fight this way" when he takes the picture perfect man sau/wu sau pose.  I am taught that the forms, the "perfect poses" in the drills are so you get to "feel" how your body should be balanced.  You can feel that same balance in other positions that does not look like that picture perfect form.  In short the form has nothing to do with how you should "look" when you fight, it's about how you should "feel" when you fight.


----------



## James.H1515

drop bear said:


> One after the other. Not at the same time.


Oh sorry I might have misunderstood you when you said 
(Head movement means I can punch with both hands where blocking and punching means I can only punch with one)

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Lazy writing generally stems from lazy thinking, as the bulk of this post seems to further indicate.
> 
> That will be all.



Possibly expecting the wrong skill set there? I don't train to write shakespear I train to smash.


----------



## drop bear

James.H1515 said:


> Oh sorry I might have misunderstood you when you said
> (Head movement means I can punch with both hands where blocking and punching means I can only punch with one)
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk



Yeah. So if both of you are throwing punches and you are also blocking. You are throwing less punches.

My two hands punching vs your one.

Which if you are both standing there just slugging it out becomes important.


----------



## James.H1515

Juany118 said:


> Then why does the NA head of my lineage of Wing Chun say, "you do not fight this way" when he takes the picture perfect man sau/wu sau pose.  I am taught that the forms, the "perfect poses" in the drills are so you get to "feel" how your body should be balanced.  You can feel that same balance in other positions that does not look like that picture perfect form.  In short the form has nothing to do with how you should "look" when you fight, it's about how you should "feel" when you fight.


Well in my class it's about structure so the way it looks in the form is the way it should be done for example the tan Sao some people only has 2 angles and use it for high strikes coming but that in terms of structure its weaker than 3 angles if a strong punch was coming the 2 angels is more likely to collapse.
What lineage you from?
Also if you don't fight this way what way does it look like?? I know it would be hard to explain but please try I'm want to know.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## James.H1515

drop bear said:


> Yeah. So if both of you are throwing punches and you are also blocking. You are throwing less punches.
> 
> My two hands punching vs your one.
> 
> Which if you are both standing there just slugging it out becomes important.


Good point 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

James.H1515 said:


> Well in my class it's about structure so the way it looks in the form is the way it should be done for example the tan Sao some people only has 2 angles and use it for high strikes coming but that in terms of structure its weaker than 3 angles if a strong punch was coming the 2 angels is more likely to collapse.
> What lineage you from?
> Also if you don't fight this way what way does it look like?? I know it would be hard to explain but please try I'm want to know.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk




Traditional Wing Chun.  The basic idea is this.  Yes structure is important, DAMN important, as a tool to train BUT the human body is a wonderful thing.  As an example, you dont need to have the perfect man sau/wu sau to protect your center.  The hands can be clenched, or half open etc.  The point is to have your hands and arms in the correct orientation to protect your center.  I don't want to lean at my waist into my opponent, begging him to take my head off, but if I move my head out of the way of a strike that I did not intercept, that's okay.  I want to use footwork to maintain a proper structure but the purpose of that structure is to maintain my center/balance.  That is something you feel.  You can not dictate what an opponent will do, you can simply deal with what happens.  If you become trapped in the idea of maintaining a perfect stance the unexpected will bite you in the ***.  (btw this, sadly, comes from real experience in real fights on the street for too many years, luckily this month signals only 5 more to go).

In short its about adhering to the principles and not getting trapped in the dogma.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Possibly expecting the wrong skill set there? I don't train to write shakespear I train to smash.


Your mind is your most dangerous tool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is really akward to try to block and punch at the same time. I do it in boxing but it has a limited use. I just cant see combinations coming fast enough to get the positions in time for them to make them work.
> 
> Head movement means I can punch with both hands where blocking and punching means I can only punch with one.
> 
> Now the sneaky trick with head movement is I can move to where they probably are not going to hit me. And that means I can be moving there before they attack. Rather than seeing a punch working out a defence then seeing the next punch and so on.
> 
> There is a whole bunch of really important things like timing and cardio and creating openings that a lot of martial arts do not spend enough time on. Believing that technique is worth more bang for buck.
> 
> You get this with the groin kick crowd a lot.
> 
> The correct technique for groin kicking probably. I dont know because it doesnt matter that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA groin kicks which I imagine were not trained and have no specific technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my view is that I will have better results learning to set up any kick rather than train the perfect groin kick. In that I will out groin kick a groin kick specialist.
> 
> All of this means that the training they are doing in the top video is time wasting.(mostly)
> 
> And why sports fighters are good at fighting in months that take other systems years.


Following up on the groin kick thing. A lot of the teaching I've seen specifically around groin kicks assumes they are fight-enders, and so doesn't include defensive cover in case the technique fails or is ineffective. I saw a video just yesterday of a guy sneaking in a quick groin kick on a police officer, and getting KTFO in response. One groin kick, one quick grunt and a punch in rapid reply. Game over.

Your training almost certainly includes assuming the kick might not remove the guy from the fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> One after the other. Not at the same time.


"The old one, two." Pretty common. Maybe the only thing more common is a jab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Fighting in the pocket takes a specialised skill set. I tend to avoid it because I have to take more punches to my head than I would like.
> 
> And I like my head the way it is.
> 
> We have so e guys who do it and they may win but they always cop a panel beating.


If I'm in there, it's either a mistake, or because I saw an opening to grapple (to stop them hitting me). Don't like it in there, not a bit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Then why does the NA head of my lineage of Wing Chun say, "you do not fight this way" when he takes the picture perfect man sau/wu sau pose.  I am taught that the forms, the "perfect poses" in the drills are so you get to "feel" how your body should be balanced.  You can feel that same balance in other positions that does not look like that picture perfect form.  In short the form has nothing to do with how you should "look" when you fight, it's about how you should "feel" when you fight.


I think that's common in a lot of TMA. There's an approach to developing principles that uses specific stances and such, which are exaggerations (IMO) of the principles. They're meant for development, not for fighting - you transition to using those principles (but not the teaching modes) in a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

James.H1515 said:


> Oh sorry I might have misunderstood you when you said
> (Head movement means I can punch with both hands where blocking and punching means I can only punch with one)
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


I think he meant both are available, whereas when blocking only the one is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Possibly expecting the wrong skill set there? I don't train to write shakespear I train to smash.


Ok, Hulk.


----------



## TMA17

This guy is great...and hilarious.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ He is one of Lyte Burly's teachers (52 Blocks guy).


----------



## TMA17

KPM said:


> ^^^^ He is one of Lyte Burly's teachers (52 Blocks guy).



I didn’t know that.  What be says about WC and martial arts in general makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Your mind is your most dangerous tool.



Idiots are dangerous.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Idiots are dangerous.


I resemble that remark!


----------



## TMA17

Here is a recent video of. WC guy vs MT.  Some WC concepts but notice what the fight ends up looking like.

Thoughts?


----------



## KPM

Billed as "style vs. style"....."Wing Chun vs. Muay Thai."  But Wing Chun guy doing high covers, spin kicks and some pretty ineffective chain punches.....and wins by a rear naked choke on the ground!   By Wing Chun logic....why didn't we see him charge in, establish a dominant inside position that the opponent couldn't escape from, and finish him off with his devastating WSLVT punch????


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

That WC vs. MT clip shows to

- catch your opponent's roundhouse kick and sweep his standing leg.
- choke your opponent's throat from behind in the ground game.

has great value in combat. IMO, all MA systems should train this kind of skill. It should not have any style boundary.


----------



## TMA17

Fighters/human beings are not static.  People move around lol.  Sure if someone stands still, as often the case drills you see at MA schools you can pull off your Tan Sao and move in or outside and chain punch him.  But in the real world it rarely ever plays out like that.  This is why, IMO, these fights break down to sloppy boxing when it involves a WC guy.  He realizes he has to move and move fast with distances not in optimal range.  They have to then resort to other ways of moving and punching themselves due to the lack of mobility and distance control.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

At 14.7, the MT guy throws a right roundhouse kick, instead of moving back, the WC guy moves in, catches the kicking leg, sweeps the standing leg, and takes his opponent down.

This is another good example that if you don't want to fight your opponent from sun raise until sun set, when you opponent moves in, you should take the risk and move in too.


----------



## TMA17

“Many Ving Tsun people don’t know how to fight … They don’t understand how to apply the concepts of Ving Tsun . This means that the students are concentrating too much on the individual technique rather than seeing the whole situation . They cannot appreciate the theory which would suggest a technique.”
Wong Shun Leung

“The other major thing that gives these limited sports martial arts a huge edge over Wing Chun is pure athleticism.”
MMA Fighter


----------



## Martial D

IMO the whole of Wing Chun is the punch. The whole rest of the system serves as support for that one thing.

Lots of chunners focus heavily on controlling limbs, and imo that is why they don't win fights.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> IMO the whole of Wing Chun is the punch. The whole rest of the system serves as support for that one thing.
> 
> Lots of chunners focus heavily on controlling limbs, and imo that is why they don't win fights.


But just punch may not be enough. You have to know at least how to

- catch a kick (controlling the limb - kicking leg).
- take your opponent down.

Otherwise you may just let that opportunity to past without knowing.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But just punch may not be enough. You have to know at least how to
> 
> - catch a kick (controlling the limb - kicking leg).
> - take your opponent down.
> 
> Otherwise you may just let that opportunity to past without knowing.


Well sure. That and a whole lot more too.

But that doesn't alter my point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But just punch may not be enough. You have to know at least how to
> 
> - catch a kick (controlling the limb - kicking leg).
> - take your opponent down.
> 
> Otherwise you may just let that opportunity to past without knowing.


I'm not sure that's absolutely necessary (and I say that as someone who trains both those things, and a lot more). A good boxer is quite well prepared for good defense against most unarmed assailants. He only really gets in trouble if the assailant is a skilled grappler.


----------



## TMA17

What about palm strikes?  There seems to be more emphasis on the chain punch.  Palm strikes appear to be quite effective and you won't break your hand.


----------



## Callen

TMA17 said:


> What about palm strikes? There seems to be more emphasis on the chain punch. Palm strikes appear to be quite effective and you won't break your hand.


Palm strikes are actually quite common in several Wing Chun lineages.

However, it is important to remember that the same core principals get applied to all attacking actions within the system. The palm strike and punch are unified concepts; hit from where the hands are, drive from the elbow, chase center, follow- up etc... When the hands are free, attack directly with no hesitation.


----------



## Martial D

TMA17 said:


> What about palm strikes?  There seems to be more emphasis on the chain punch.  Palm strikes appear to be quite effective and you won't break your hand.


Well yes, there is a whole syllabus of techniques, including kicks palms elbows pokes etc as well as sau shapes footwork, theory and principles.

All built around that one little punch. In WC, at least my WC, your knuckles on his face is the end goal. Everything else in the system is built to get you there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> your knuckles on his face is the end goal. Everything else in the system is built to get you there.


Agree! All Taiji guys like to talk about how soft they are. Most WC guys like to talk about Tan, Beng, Fu. The Tan, Beng, Fu are just to help you to land your fist on your opponent's face.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...Most WC guys like to talk about Tan, Beng, Fu. The Tan, Beng, Fu are just to help you to land your fist on your opponent's face.



Agreed. One of your best observations on WC in a while, John!


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> What about palm strikes?  There seems to be more emphasis on the chain punch.  Palm strikes appear to be quite effective and you won't break your hand.



You can still break your wrist though. Or your fingers.


----------



## wayfaring

anerlich said:


> A "Wing Chun specific format" of competition is not a solution. Such a thing would be an admission that Wing Chun can't hack it against other styles in widely used combat sport rulesets.
> 
> One of my sidais became a WKA kickboxing world champion. Several others have had some success in MMA and kickboxing locally and at big shows in Asia. Alan Orr is the best known but hardly the only guy that has made WC work in combat Sports.
> 
> If you can't fight with your Wing Chun with gloves and adapt to rulesets, I'm not betting on you in a defense situation. Other WC people have done it.  No excuses.



Yes for sure.  What fun is it without being able to do combat sport rulesets?

Some of the other disciplines use art specific competitions as an alternative or many times as a "warmup" or "rookie team" alternative to fights.  For example all of the grappling comps MMA fighters do, EBI, FTW, ADCC,  boxing, kickboxing as you say, SanDa (had a dude roll thru trained with Cung Le - awesome).

Now please do not take this as me supporting Wing Chun Chi Sau specific competition - I guess chi sau comps might be cool for real wing chun enthusiasts like around here, and to promote the art, and as a warmup for other rulesets.  So I can see where they have a place.  But I'm an enthusiast and I don't really like them much - to me seems like why aren't they sparring?  I've seen some modified ruleset chi sau comps with headgear and mma gloves.  Those are funny too - they are more geared up than live night at MMA.  

But I guess overall I can see style specific competitions more to keep the interest in the style going, get together - more of a community thing than anything.  And as a starter to amateur and pro MMA.  But not as a replacement, or solution alternative to competing in combat sports rulesets.

Good stuff.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> Yes for sure.  What fun is it without being able to do combat sport rulesets?
> 
> Some of the other disciplines use art specific competitions as an alternative or many times as a "warmup" or "rookie team" alternative to fights.  For example all of the grappling comps MMA fighters do, EBI, FTW, ADCC,  boxing, kickboxing as you say, SanDa (had a dude roll thru trained with Cung Le - awesome).
> 
> Now please do not take this as me supporting Wing Chun Chi Sau specific competition - I guess chi sau comps might be cool for real wing chun enthusiasts like around here, and to promote the art, and as a warmup for other rulesets.  So I can see where they have a place.  But I'm an enthusiast and I don't really like them much - to me seems like why aren't they sparring?  I've seen some modified ruleset chi sau comps with headgear and mma gloves.  Those are funny too - they are more geared up than live night at MMA.
> 
> But I guess overall I can see style specific competitions more to keep the interest in the style going, get together - more of a community thing than anything.  And as a starter to amateur and pro MMA.  But not as a replacement, or solution alternative to competing in combat sports rulesets.
> 
> Good stuff.



Not really BJJ has its own competitions that don't have to have anything to do with MMA.

I think you have to have some sort of vehicle for competition.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> You can still break your wrist though. Or your fingers.


Plus you lose effective range. Palms with the knife edge part of the hand don't suck for clinch striking, but taking range away from an already short range system is not always the best idea.

As it is, even at 6'3 with an 80 inch reach I still need to be quick on my feet to land WC stuff if I'm not already tied up.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Plus you lose effective range. Palms with the knife edge part of the hand don't suck for clinch striking, but taking range away from an already short range system is not always the best idea.
> 
> As it is, even at 6'3 with an 80 inch reach I still need to be quick on my feet to land WC stuff if I'm not already tied up.



If you have a look at that hand fighting video in the wrist grabbing thread. clinching is kind of striking. They bash with the hand and forearm anyway.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Of course. You are totally correct. Most people are stuck in the very basic principles and they cannot even punch. Watch in the video how people are trapped in the basic tools, ignore the concepts of Wing Chun and how they should PUNCH, instead of doing stupid chain punches.


----------



## Argus

"Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way?"

Of course. Most people use most things the wrong way. And, that's a stage that all of us must by definition pass through as a part of learning/self discovery. That is standard with any art/system/what have you, and it's the number one reason, I think, why people are always questioning if an art is effective.

I don't actually think much about this. I do think my Wing Chun needs a lot of work, but I don't doubt that it works as a system. I think I can apply it quite well in some situations, and quite poorly in others. My goal is just to keep learning and practicing until I can apply it quite well in a lot more situations! That comes with training and experience.

That's all there is to it.


----------



## Hanzou

You know, there has to be a point where you ask yourself; If there's so many people supposedly doing something the wrong way, either the training method is bogus, your instructors don't know what they're doing, or a combination of both. It simply can't all be placed on the students "just not getting it".


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> You know, there has to be a point where you ask yourself; If there's so many people supposedly doing something the wrong way, either the training method is bogus, your instructors don't know what they're doing, or a combination of both. It simply can't all be placed on the students "just not getting it".



I think the fault lies mostly with instructors who don't understand wing chun, who at one time were students who didn't get it who were probably taught by instructors who didn't know what they were doing.........


----------



## drop bear

yak sao said:


> I think the fault lies mostly with instructors who don't understand wing chun, who at one time were students who didn't get it who were probably taught by instructors who didn't know what they were doing.........



It is instructors that don't understand fighting. And wing chun quite often get the meta concept wrong because of that.

So for example our boxing coach preaches the idea of win the entry, win the exit.

That is not style specific. You have to have a method of getting in to do damage and getting out to avoid it. And it is where you face really dangerous strikes. You are walking in to shots or they have room to really wind up.

And yet is generally ignored.

So here is that demonstrated.






And by the way straight forward and straight backwards is a bad habit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> You know, there has to be a point where you ask yourself; If there's so many people supposedly doing something the wrong way, either the training method is bogus, your instructors don't know what they're doing, or a combination of both. It simply can't all be placed on the students "just not getting it".


That, or the training approach is designed for a very long learning curve (or maybe assumes a foundation not common among current students, which is sort of the same thing).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That, or the training approach is designed for a very long learning curve (or maybe assumes a foundation not common among current students, which is sort of the same thing).


  There's a reason it's called a learning curve and not a learning switch.  You don't suck at it until one day it's like a lightning bolt of proficiency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> There's a reason it's called a learning curve and not a learning switch.  You don't suck at it until one day it's like a lightning bolt of proficiency.


Agreed.


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> I think the fault lies mostly with instructors who don't understand wing chun, who at one time were students who didn't get it who were probably taught by instructors who didn't know what they were doing.........



Okay, but if you have that many instructors running around not knowing what they're doing, at what point do you start blaming the methodology behind what they're being taught?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That, or the training approach is designed for a very long learning curve (or maybe assumes a foundation not common among current students, which is sort of the same thing).



My martial art  has a long learning curve, and we don't have issues like this.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but if you have that many instructors running around not knowing what they're doing, at what point do you start blaming the methodology behind what they're being taught?



But I think that's the problem...too many WC guys are poorly trained and they end up following a faulty paradigm and they end up doing a caricature of what they think WC is supposed to look like.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> My martial art  has a long learning curve, and we don't have issues like this.



I fell into this trap as a teacher a while back.
I found myself relying heavily on solo and 2 man drills trying to instill proper movement/concepts/ technique into my students.
While those things are important, I wish I had just had them glove up and figure it out as they went along.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> My martial art  has a long learning curve, and we don't have issues like this.


I'm not aware of an art that doesn't have a long learning curve if you look at what it takes to do them at a high level. I'm speaking to training approaches that are designed around the idea of a long slope, rather than necessarily going for the fastest learning path. It seems to me some training approaches are designed this way, that the slower learning is a purposeful approach and intended to encourage specific traits.

In case I'm not clear what I mean there, look at BJJ as an example counter to what I'm describing. It takes a long time to get to a high level of competency (compared to the folks who are really good at it). But the early training seems focused on delivering individual competency as quickly as possible on the basics.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not aware of an art that doesn't have a long learning curve if you look at what it takes to do them at a high level. I'm speaking to training approaches that are designed around the idea of a long slope, rather than necessarily going for the fastest learning path. It seems to me some training approaches are designed this way, that the slower learning is a purposeful approach and intended to encourage specific traits.
> 
> In case I'm not clear what I mean there, look at BJJ as an example counter to what I'm describing. It takes a long time to get to a high level of competency (compared to the folks who are really good at it). But the early training seems focused on delivering individual competency as quickly as possible on the basics.



So wing chun doesn't focus on the competency of basics?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> So wing chun doesn't focus on the competency of basics?


All MA systems require ability. The technique is only the 50%. The ability is the other 50%.

What are the 

- WC ability training?
- BJJ ability training?


----------



## Poppity

drop bear said:


> So wing chun doesn't focus on the competency of basics?



I think the issue is the opposite. In some cases competency of the basics became too all consuming, until the wider view of using wing chun as a martial  skill came secondary to the study of the minutiae. A bit like looking at a boxer and deciding their balance, reach and swing is all wrong so taking them out of bouts to solely practice their form.

I feel chi sau is a good example if this. At its heart it's just a transition of being proactive to reactive and vice versa, but in some cases the obsession of specialising in this area meant that the actual proactive attacks and reactive defensives weren't drilled, practiced and applied in a live format, like changing gears real smooth but being unable to drive.

a bit more sparring and it should all translate quick though


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Snark said:


> I feel chi sau is a good example if this.


But WC sticky hand belong to the technique training. It's not ability training.

Here are some examples of ability training.

1. Develop powerful striking.






2. Develop strong grabbing.


----------



## Poppity

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But WC sticky hand belong to the technique training. It's not ability training.
> 
> Here are some examples of ability training.
> 
> 1. Develop powerful striking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Develop strong grabbing.



I don't know... For me chi sau isn't really a technique it's for transitioning between techniques. I kinda see those examples you posted as  conditioning or for enhancing ability not an ability in themselves.

Just my view in it though and I'm a nobody on the internet.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Snark said:


> for enhancing ability not an ability in themselves.


Technique enhancement should be the right words.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All MA systems require ability. The technique is only the 50%. The ability is the other 50%.
> 
> What are the
> 
> - WC ability training?
> - BJJ ability training?



Yet some methods consistently out perform others.

Swimming requires ability. But if you learn to swim you will get better at it than if you learn to fly airplanes.


----------



## drop bear

Snark said:


> I think the issue is the opposite. In some cases competency of the basics became too all consuming, until the wider view of using wing chun as a martial  skill came secondary to the study of the minutiae. A bit like looking at a boxer and deciding their balance, reach and swing is all wrong so taking them out of bouts to solely practice their form.
> 
> I feel chi sau is a good example if this. At its heart it's just a transition of being proactive to reactive and vice versa, but in some cases the obsession of specialising in this area meant that the actual proactive attacks and reactive defensives weren't drilled, practiced and applied in a live format, like changing gears real smooth but being unable to drive.
> 
> a bit more sparring and it should all translate quick though



Yeah. And this is the argument. If you engage in training that is more efficient at developing ability you will have more ability more quickly. Sparring focuses on elements that translate to fighting better than chi sau. And that isn't all or nothing it is a percentage.

BJJ for example is actually incredibly slow to show results because where they achieve results is in resisted training.

I keep making this joke in training  that here I am busting a lung to fight of one guy when if I did Krav Maga I would be dropping the whole room by now.

I mean this guy is handling two dudes with bats.





And I struggle with one dude wearing pyjamas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So wing chun doesn't focus on the competency of basics?


I don’t know if it does. I was presenting a possibility. I think some traditional approaches see the “basics of the style” as not the same as “basics of fighting”. I certainly see that to some extent in the traditional approach of my own primary art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yet some methods consistently out perform others.
> 
> Swimming requires ability. But if you learn to swim you will get better at it than if you learn to fly airplanes.


I think swimming is an apt analogy. How you swim (stroke used) definitely affects outcome in a race. At the same time, a great swimmer doing the breast stroke will probably outpace an average swimmer using freestyle.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think swimming is an apt analogy. How you swim (stroke used) definitely affects outcome in a race. At the same time, a great swimmer doing the breast stroke will probably outpace an average swimmer using freestyle.



It would make sense to me if I was not a naturally gifted swimmer to use the most efficient method of swimming. 

Rather than shackle my lack of athleticism by combining it with an inefficient stroke. 

If our swimmer competed against himself using both strokes then the more efficient method would win.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don’t know if it does. I was presenting a possibility. I think some traditional approaches see the “basics of the style” as not the same as “basics of fighting”. I certainly see that to some extent in the traditional approach of my own primary art.



Yeah if you looked at sword cutting for example. Where the aim isn't really to get that straw bale thingy in half. Which most people could do with a $10  machete with about half an hours training.

It is more to do with achieving a bunch of other requirements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah if you looked at sword cutting for example. Where the aim isn't really to get that straw bale thingy in half. Which most people could do with a $10  machete with about half an hours training.
> 
> It is more to do with achieving a bunch of other requirements.


Agreed. And sometimes that other stuff is why folks choose one thing over another. It’s what appeals to some. I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It would make sense to me if I was not a naturally gifted swimmer to use the most efficient method of swimming.
> 
> Rather than shackle my lack of athleticism by combining it with an inefficient stroke.
> 
> If our swimmer competed against himself using both strokes then the more efficient method would win.


If your aim was to be as fast as possible in the time you were willing to commit, that’s probably the best approach.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If your aim was to be as fast as possible in the time you were willing to commit, that’s probably the best approach.



Yeah or obviously self defence if you fall out of a boat or something.  At which point even amazing breast stroke guy would probably do freestyle as well.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And sometimes that other stuff is why folks choose one thing over another. It’s what appeals to some. I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.



I don't even think most aiki is the most effective way to develop aiki. When you see what people can achieve in other disciplines. 

Say compared say to the ability of the thais for example


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And sometimes that other stuff is why folks choose one thing over another. It’s what appeals to some. I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.


If aiki is the goal, why intentionally choose an inefficient training model?  If the training is the goal, not the result, I guess I can understand.  

“what are you trying to do?”
“Working on aiki.”
“How long have you been doing it?”
“Long time.  Years.”
“You any good?”
“Not really.  Probably never will be.”
“So working on aiki isn’t really the goal. Is it?”
“Working is the goal.  Being good at it isn’t.”

if that’s the point, I get it.  If actually being good at it is, you’re doing it wrong.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> choose an inefficient training model...


This is why I believe that right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook may be the best punching combo that you can find among all different MA systems. When your opponent tries to block your jab and cross, your right hook and left hook can get him from the side most of the time.

Comparing to some MA systems that you only train 1 punch, the jab, cross, hook, hook is a much better combo training IMO.

Also the combo training will force a beginner to understand the principle that when he creates an opening, he can attack through that opening. A beginner won't be able to learn this by doing single punch only.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.


Here is my concern. I can only accumulate my fighting experience when I was young. When I get older, even if my MA skill have been improved, I won't have chance to test it in the ring or on the mat any more.

Our tournament testing window in our lifetime is so small, if we miss it, it will be gone forever. In other words, any MA system that I can't be good at before I was 35, it won't do me any good.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> choose an inefficient training model...


I encourage my guys to develop their own solo form (drills). The form include kick, punch, throw, footwork. The form can be trained with speed (1 step 3 punches) and with power (1 step 1 punch).

Here is one road of the 18 roads punching combo. Each road starts with a fighting stance, and end with a fighting stance.

It uses

- kicks to set up punches.
- punches to move in.
- footwork to chase opponent.
- arm contact to set up throw.

I like this kind of training method. It doesn't have to be restricted by any style boundary.

*5th Road (Power)*
Fight Stance
Roundhouse kick R
Side kick R
Jab R
Hook L
Hook R
Downward parry with running punch footwork
Step
Knee Seizing with Scoop kick R
Fight Stance


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah or obviously self defence if you fall out of a boat or something.  At which point even amazing breast stroke guy would probably do freestyle as well.


He definitely might. Wouldn't need to, though. I suppose he could survive well enough with breast stroke. For slow swimming, it's probably more efficient, but that's just the analogy falling apart at that point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't even think most aiki is the most effective way to develop aiki. When you see what people can achieve in other disciplines.
> 
> Say compared say to the ability of the thais for example


I've not seen much aiki happen spontaneously in other arts. It shows up routinely in Judo at the higher levels, but is rarely used because a skilled Judoka will remove most aiki opportunities for their opponent. So not much chance to practice it.

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about with the Thais.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If aiki is the goal, why intentionally choose an inefficient training model?  If the training is the goal, not the result, I guess I can understand.
> 
> “what are you trying to do?”
> “Working on aiki.”
> “How long have you been doing it?”
> “Long time.  Years.”
> “You any good?”
> “Not really.  Probably never will be.”
> “So working on aiki isn’t really the goal. Is it?”
> “Working is the goal.  Being good at it isn’t.”
> 
> if that’s the point, I get it.  If actually being good at it is, you’re doing it wrong.


I actually think the aiki-oriented training approach is pretty good for developing aiki. It's about as efficient as you can get, from what I've seen. It's just not as efficient for developing fighting ability. It's a matter of compromise to put goals together. I suspect the Ki-aikido folks are better at developing aiki, since they don't really need to develop fighting skills at the same time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my concern. I can only accumulate my fighting experience when I was young. When I get older, even if my MA skill have been improved, I won't have chance to test it in the ring or on the mat any more.
> 
> Our tournament testing window in our lifetime is so small, if we miss it, it will be gone forever. In other words, any MA system that I can't be good at before I was 35, it won't do me any good.


I was never really focused on that, so it wasn't an issue for me. Combat competitions didn't appeal to me in my 20's and 30's. Oddly, they appeal more now.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my concern. I can only accumulate my fighting experience when I was young. When I get older, even if my MA skill have been improved, I won't have chance to test it in the ring or on the mat any more.
> 
> Our tournament testing window in our lifetime is so small, if we miss it, it will be gone forever. In other words, any MA system that I can't be good at before I was 35, it won't do me any good.


Are you unable to evaluate your training and skills without competition?


----------



## Ivan

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


Wing Chun isn't being used the incorrect way. It is being trained in incorrect ways.

Let's omit the fact that it doesn't have sparring. Wing Chun was developed and taught in an era where being a skilled martial artist was a career, not a sport or a hobby. Many people who studied martial artists, devoted themselves to them completely. They would go on to become teachers, masters, soldiers, mercenaries and more. In China, it was also essential to be well trained for anyone who considered themselves a gentleman. This meant that people who trained in Wing Chun dedicated a lot more time, and a lot more effort than the modern, average martial artist.

In contrast to before, almost everyone who trains martial arts does so recreationally; it's their hobby, not their occupation. When people's priorities change, so does the quality of their work. Unless someone fervently dedicated years to mastering Wing Chun (a very, *very* technical and scientific fighting method) they won't be able to use it as it was intended.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I actually think the aiki-oriented training approach is pretty good for developing aiki. It's about as efficient as you can get, from what I've seen. It's just not as efficient for developing fighting ability. It's a matter of compromise to put goals together. I suspect the Ki-aikido folks are better at developing aiki, since they don't really need to develop fighting skills at the same time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Are you unable to evaluate your training and skills without competition?


Unless you travel and challenge people all the time, otherwise you won't have chance to test your skill against a *total stranger*.

IMO, without product testing, the product is not ready for the market.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Unless you travel and challenge people all the time, otherwise you won't have chance to test your skill against a *total stranger*.
> 
> IMO, without product testing, the product is not ready for the market.


I guess I don’t see what I do as a product to be brought to market.  It’s just what I do.  If someone is interested, I might be willing to share, and I likely would ask a reasonable fee for my time and energy.  If someone is not interested, no problem there either.  But I definitely do not see it as a commodity. 

You’ve been doing this stuff long enough, you ought to be a good judge of quality when you see it and do it.


----------



## Cynik75

Ivan said:


> .... Wing Chun was developed and taught in an era where being a skilled martial artist was a career, not a sport or a hobby


What kind of career in times of guns? Only bouncer or sportsman.


Ivan said:


> Many people who studied martial artists, devoted themselves to them completely.


Just like today. 


Ivan said:


> They would go on to become teachers, masters, soldiers, mercenaries and more.


Just like today. And soldiers and mercenaries do not need to be skilled martial artists. Even in XIX century China.


Ivan said:


> In China, it was also essential to be well trained for anyone who considered themselves a gentleman.


So social elite people wanted to have scars, bruises, cauliflowers... love no, maybe part part of them wanted to be recognize as "hand-to-hand combat master" but it probably was like a BJJ garbage program for celebrities who cannot suffer any damage during traing - and they do not spar at all. (Rigan Machado Designs Jiu-Jitsu System without Sparring for Celebrities)


Ivan said:


> This meant that people who trained in Wing Chun dedicated a lot more time, and a lot more effort than the modern, average martial artist.


Small part of them probably yes. But most of them were average Lees not different from nowadays average Joes..


Ivan said:


> ...Unless someone fervently dedicated years to mastering Wing Chun... they won't be able to use it as it was intended.


But the story is Wing Chun was created and designed to live people fighting ability in short period of time. Especially "soldiers" and "mercenaries"  and even small women cannot wait 20 years to be able to fight. They cannot say to the enemy, attacker or rapist "please wait 20 years". 



Ivan said:


> a very, *very* technical and scientific fighting method


 No more technical than other MAs. And what is scientific in WC?


----------



## Ivan

Cynik75 said:


> What kind of career in times of guns? Only bouncer or sportsman.
> 
> Just like today.
> 
> Just like today. And soldiers and mercenaries do not need to be skilled martial artists. Even in XIX century China.
> 
> So social elite people wanted to have scars, bruises, cauliflowers... love no, maybe part part of them wanted to be recognize as "hand-to-hand combat master" but it probably was like a BJJ garbage program for celebrities who cannot suffer any damage during traing - and they do not spar at all. (Rigan Machado Designs Jiu-Jitsu System without Sparring for Celebrities)
> 
> Small part of them probably yes. But most of them were average Lees not different from nowadays average Joes..
> 
> But the story is Wing Chun was created and designed to live people fighting ability in short period of time. Especially "soldiers" and "mercenaries"  and even small women cannot wait 20 years to be able to fight. They cannot say to the enemy, attacker or rapist "please wait 20 years".
> 
> No more technical than other MAs. And what is scientific in WC?


I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.

For starters, most people today who dedicate themselves to martial arts fully today, don't train Wing Chun. That's a fact. You are not discerning people who dedicate themselves fully to MA in this day and age, to martial artists that dedicated themselves to Wing Chun solely and completely.

Mercenaries and soldiers don't need to be skilled, but the ones that want to live, do. Also, it was an important part of the culture that those who were considered Gentlemen amongst Chinese society always carried a sword and were well instructed in forms of combat from very young ages.

Wing Chun might have been designed to be learnt quickly, but again, it failed. You can't take a martial art that doesn't have sparring, and whose training is based solely on repetition, and claim that anyone can use it. The reason there aren't many skilled practitioners of Wing Chun in these modern times compared to before is simply that there aren't as many people who are willing to dedicate as much time to Wing Chun as old practitioners did. 

Even the "average joes" before had jobs, but those jobs consisted of manual labour which in itself, is training. Contrast that to today, a large portion of the population's job involves sitting down and ruining your posture by staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, while eating junky and processed food crammed with unknown hormones and obscene amounts of artificial ingredients.

Lastly, Wing Chun, is considerably more technical than many martial arts out there. Its main offensive tool, the train track punch is a very weak strike - when you compare it to the boxer's cross, or the karatekas reverse punch it pales in comparison. Yet, Wing Chun is a developed system that is based on using this punch in quick succession to cause damage. What other martial art can you think of that bases its entire curriculum on an objectively weak punch?


----------



## Cynik75

Ivan said:
			
		

> .Mercenaries and soldiers don't need to be skilled, but the ones that want to live, do.


The traceable beginings of wing chun are from about 1850. In this times soldier or mercenary who wanted to live needed to have rifle. WC was not created for soldiers in any period of time. 



			
				Ivan said:
			
		

> .Also, it was an important part of the culture that those who were considered Gentlemen amongst Chinese society always carried a sword and were well instructed in forms of combat from very young ages.


  Somewhen in 4000 years of China history for sure. But not 150 years ago.



			
				Ivan said:
			
		

> ....The reason there aren't many skilled practitioners of Wing Chun in these modern times compared to before is simply that there aren't as many people who are willing to dedicate as much time to Wing Chun as old practitioners did.


Any reliable numerical data to compare? Or just your thoughts?



			
				Ivan said:
			
		

> Even the "average joes" before had jobs, but those jobs consisted of manual labour which in itself, is training.


As we know the best fighters are plumbers and carpenters. 



			
				Ivan said:
			
		

> Contrast that to today, a large portion of the population's job involves sitting down and ruining your posture by staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, while eating junky and processed food crammed with unknown hormones and obscene amounts of artificial ingredients.


Have you ever read about general health of people from old times? 



			
				Ivan said:
			
		

> Lastly, Wing Chun, is considerably more technical than many martial arts out there.


How do you measure "technical level" of martial art? 



			
				Ivan said:
			
		

> Its main offensive tool, the train track punch is a very weak strike - when you compare it to the boxer's cross, or the karatekas reverse punch it pales in comparison. Yet, Wing Chun is a developed system that is based on using this punch in quick succession to cause damage. What other martial art can you think of that bases its entire curriculum on an objectively weak punch?



Still no answer why you think WC is scientific MA?


----------



## Flying Crane

Ivan said:


> I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.
> 
> For starters, most people today who dedicate themselves to martial arts fully today, don't train Wing Chun. That's a fact. You are not discerning people who dedicate themselves fully to MA in this day and age, to martial artists that dedicated themselves to Wing Chun solely and completely.
> 
> Mercenaries and soldiers don't need to be skilled, but the ones that want to live, do. Also, it was an important part of the culture that those who were considered Gentlemen amongst Chinese society always carried a sword and were well instructed in forms of combat from very young ages.
> 
> Wing Chun might have been designed to be learnt quickly, but again, it failed. You can't take a martial art that doesn't have sparring, and whose training is based solely on repetition, and claim that anyone can use it. The reason there aren't many skilled practitioners of Wing Chun in these modern times compared to before is simply that there aren't as many people who are willing to dedicate as much time to Wing Chun as old practitioners did.
> 
> Even the "average joes" before had jobs, but those jobs consisted of manual labour which in itself, is training. Contrast that to today, a large portion of the population's job involves sitting down and ruining your posture by staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, while eating junky and processed food crammed with unknown hormones and obscene amounts of artificial ingredients.
> 
> Lastly, Wing Chun, is considerably more technical than many martial arts out there. Its main offensive tool, the train track punch is a very weak strike - when you compare it to the boxer's cross, or the karatekas reverse punch it pales in comparison. Yet, Wing Chun is a developed system that is based on using this punch in quick succession to cause damage. What other martial art can you think of that bases its entire curriculum on an objectively weak punch?


You are making a lot of blanket statements about wing Chun and those who practice it.  On what do you base these statements?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah or obviously self defence if you fall out of a boat or something.  At which point even amazing breast stroke guy would probably do freestyle as well.


depends how far the shore is, the most efficient stroke is possibly back stroke,as it takes by far the least effort, then breast stroke, freestyle/ crawl is ussualy the fastest but it consumes a lot of energy, butterfly is just people showing off

if the shore or boat is a dot in the distance im breast stroking my way out, with some backstroke if i need a rest, if im being chased by a croc im going for crawl


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> But I think that's the problem...too many WC guys are poorly trained and they end up following a faulty paradigm and they end up doing a caricature of what they think WC is supposed to look like.



But that begs the question; What is WC _supposed_ to look like? It seems that everyone has a different opinion on that.

I suppose from my background that really seems like a weird predicament to be in. In Bjj we just absorb what works and it becomes Bjj. There's no "wrong way" to do something if it works.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> But that begs the question; What is WC _supposed_ to look like? It seems that everyone has a different opinion on that.
> 
> I suppose from my background that really seems like a weird predicament to be in. In Bjj we just absorb what works and it becomes Bjj. There's no "wrong way" to do something if it works.




Is it really supposed to look like anything? WC is not so much a "style" of martial art as it is a system of training your body to fight efficiently.
While the movements of WC are useful for fighting, I consider them more as examples of ways to use the body.
But instead they've become this dogmatic way of moving. 

As an example, chain punching is an effective way of teaching the new WC student to defend himself. But the underlying principle being conveyed is relentless attack. But too many misunderstand this tactic that is used as an example to teach the strategy and it instead becomes their main arsenal.


----------



## Flying Crane

yak sao said:


> Is it really supposed to look like anything? WC is not so much a "style" of martial art as it is a system of training your body to fight efficiently.
> While the movements of WC are useful for fighting, I consider them more as examples of ways to use the body.
> But instead they've become this dogmatic way of moving.
> 
> As an example, chain punching is an effective way of teaching the new WC student to defend himself. But the underlying principle being conveyed is relentless attack. But too many misunderstand this tactic that is used as an example to teach the strategy and it instead becomes their main arsenal.


Amen.  I’ve been saying this for years.


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> Is it really supposed to look like anything? WC is not so much a "style" of martial art as it is a system of training your body to fight efficiently.
> While the movements of WC are useful for fighting, I consider them more as examples of ways to use the body.
> But instead they've become this dogmatic way of moving.



So using that definition, wouldn't *any *fighting system be essentially "Wing Chun"?


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> So using that definition, wouldn't *any *fighting system be essentially "Wing Chun"?



No.

Wing Chun has specific, identifiable principles such as forward intent, relaxed, springy energy,  preference for stand-up linear striking and short, close range attacks and an emphasis on economy of motion not equally valued in some other striking systems.  So while it's principles and approaches can be expressed in a variety of ways (not always assuming the traditional poses, etc.) it would not probably look like just _*any *_fighting system such as TKD, Northern Longfist, BJJ, Capoeira, or Sumo to name a few....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> So using that definition, wouldn't *any *fighting system be essentially "Wing Chun"?


One thing that I don't understand is some people may be just too serious about the name of their MA system.

If you throw a roundhouse kick (or foot sweep) followed by a hook punch, what style are you doing?

Why do you want to throw a

- roundhouse kick? Because your opponent's leading leg is too close to you.
- hook punch? Because your roundhouse kick (or foot sweep) rotate your body.

Your body just respond to whatever the opportunity that your opponent presents to you. Even if you are a WC guy, you still won't let that opportunity to pass by.

What will you do if the best solution for a certain problem doesn't come from your MA system? Do you pretend that you don't see that opportunity?


----------



## Hanzou

geezer said:


> No.
> 
> Wing Chun has specific, identifiable principles such as forward intent, relaxed, springy energy,  preference for stand-up linear striking and short, close range attacks and an emphasis on economy of motion not equally valued in some other striking systems.  So while it's principles and approaches can be expressed in a variety of ways (not always assuming the traditional poses, etc.) it would not probably look like just _*any *_fighting system such as TKD, Northern Longfist, BJJ, Capoeira, or Sumo to name a few....



So what’s the issue with its training methodology? Are most WCers learning from forms, or are they free-sparring, or a mixture of both?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

yak sao said:


> I fell into this trap as a teacher a while back.
> I found myself relying heavily on solo and 2 man drills trying to instill proper movement/concepts/ technique into my students.
> While those things are important, I wish I had just had them glove up and figure it out as they went along.


My preferred teaching model goes something like this:

Start class with some warm-ups which also reinforce proper movement patterns.
Give students a technique or two-person drill to work on for a bit.
Give some rounds of sparring. This doesn't always have to be symmetrical, totally free-form sparring. You can set parameters to keep students focused on the lesson of the day. For example, one variation I like is for partner A to start with an (unresisted) takedown on partner B. Once B hits the mat the match goes live, with B trying to regain their feet and A trying to keep them down.
Watch to see what elements of technique and form fall apart under live pressure.
Take a short break and troubleshoot. Give students specific feedback on what they were doing and how they can improve. (Usually only one or two points per individual so as not to overload them.) Give them a few moments to replay a spot where they were having trouble and practice the correction you just gave them.
Send them back to sparring and see if they can implement the feedback.

When I am able to participate in the sparring, I'll look for opportunities to apply the specific techniques we were just drilling, so that the students can a) see that the moves work and b) experience the feel and timing of the technique in a live context.

I don't see any reason why this approach wouldn't work just as well for WC.


----------



## yak sao

Tony Dismukes said:


> My preferred teaching model goes something like this:
> 
> Start class with some warm-ups which also reinforce proper movement patterns.
> Give students a technique or two-person drill to work on for a bit.
> Give some rounds of sparring. This doesn't always have to be symmetrical, totally free-form sparring. You can set parameters to keep students focused on the lesson of the day. For example, one variation I like is for partner A to start with an (unresisted) takedown on partner B. Once B hits the mat the match goes live, with B trying to regain their feet and A trying to keep them down.
> Watch to see what elements of technique and form fall apart under live pressure.
> Take a short break and troubleshoot. Give students specific feedback on what they were doing and how they can improve. (Usually only one or two points per individual so as not to overload them.) Give them a few moments to replay a spot where they were having trouble and practice the correction you just gave them.
> Send them back to sparring and see if they can implement the feedback.
> 
> When I am able to participate in the sparring, I'll look for opportunities to apply the specific techniques we were just drilling, so that the students can a) see that the moves work and b) experience the feel and timing of the technique in a live context.
> 
> I don't see any reason why this approach wouldn't work just as well for WC.



When I had my school and we were training multiple days a week this is very much the approach we would take. 
After I closed my school and started teaching on weekends only. It seems like I spent most of my time just trying to get people to perform proper body mechanics and techniques and we never got into the meat of what I was trying to accomplish.

If I ever resume teaching again I hope to go back to the first model... it's very hard to convey WT teaching weekends only


----------



## Flying Crane

yak sao said:


> When I had my school and we were training multiple days a week this is very much the approach we would take.
> After I closed my school and started teaching on weekends only. It seems like I spent most of my time just trying to get people to perform proper body mechanics and techniques and we never got into the meat of what I was trying to accomplish.
> 
> If I ever resume teaching again I hope to go back to the first model... it's very hard to convey WT teaching weekends only


That is where the students need to be responsible for their own training, and practice at home.  Then most of your class time can be spent on interactive things when you are together.


----------



## yak sao

Flying Crane said:


> That is where the students need to be responsible for their own training, and practice at home.  Then most of your class time can be spent on interactive things when you are together.



The trouble is they don't.....pretty much why I gave it up....for now.


----------



## Flying Crane

yak sao said:


> The trouble is they don't.....pretty much why I gave it up....for now.


Yeah, I would say most people fail to step up and take that personal ownership and responsibility.  I don’t understand why not.  It always seemed obvious to me, literally from day one, my very first lesson.  If I didn’t spend time at home practicing on days between classes, I felt guilty, like I wasn’t doing what was required.  I had been taught something, why would I not work to improve it?  Why would I be the cause of the teacher needing to waste his time and teach me something again, that he already taught?  That isn’t to say that guidance and critique weren’t necessary and ongoing, just that I knew when I fell short and didn’t do my part to strive for improvement.  That was my responsibility as a student: To learn and develop what is being taught. And it’s not to build a guilt complex over it, but just to understand what your role as a student is.  

What is it that makes people want to join a school and then not embrace what is necessary to improve?  I don’t know.  

You are a teacher, so clearly you have embraced your responsibility in your own training.  It goes beyond simply remembering the formal curriculum, and includes recognizing how it can be used creatively and effectively and where you can develop your own creative drills, in addition to adhering to the methodology that was passed down to you and establishes the system.  What makes you and I different from the masses?  I don’t know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> But that begs the question; What is WC _supposed_ to look like? It seems that everyone has a different opinion on that.
> 
> I suppose from my background that really seems like a weird predicament to be in. In Bjj we just absorb what works and it becomes Bjj. There's no "wrong way" to do something if it works.


This is one of the areas where I think discussion of TMA goes off the rails. What it looks like isn’t really material, in my opinion. If the principles are followed, it’s valid to the art in question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> My preferred teaching model goes something like this:
> 
> Start class with some warm-ups which also reinforce proper movement patterns.
> Give students a technique or two-person drill to work on for a bit.
> Give some rounds of sparring. This doesn't always have to be symmetrical, totally free-form sparring. You can set parameters to keep students focused on the lesson of the day. For example, one variation I like is for partner A to start with an (unresisted) takedown on partner B. Once B hits the mat the match goes live, with B trying to regain their feet and A trying to keep them down.
> Watch to see what elements of technique and form fall apart under live pressure.
> Take a short break and troubleshoot. Give students specific feedback on what they were doing and how they can improve. (Usually only one or two points per individual so as not to overload them.) Give them a few moments to replay a spot where they were having trouble and practice the correction you just gave them.
> Send them back to sparring and see if they can implement the feedback.
> 
> When I am able to participate in the sparring, I'll look for opportunities to apply the specific techniques we were just drilling, so that the students can a) see that the moves work and b) experience the feel and timing of the technique in a live context.
> 
> I don't see any reason why this approach wouldn't work just as well for WC.


This is exactly the format I got to see you use when I observed you teaching. Lots of merit, and a good model, IMO. Got me thinking about where I wasn’t pushing enough in this direction.


----------



## yak sao

Flying Crane said:


> .........  What makes you and I different from the masses?  I don’t know.



I think there's a bone missing in our head.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

yak sao said:


> The trouble is they don't.....pretty much why I gave it up....for now.


In my experience, if the students know they’re going to be sparring and getting hit in class, it gives them more motivation to train on their own in-between classes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> In my experience, if the students know they’re going to be sparring and getting hit in class, it gives them more motivation to train on their own in-between classes.


I also often give specific homework assignments. The idea is to get them used to the idea (and develop the habit) of doing things outside class. Sometime folks don’t do things outside class because they have too many choices, so can’t figure where to put their time. Or they don’t have the experience to put together something to work on, so part of their learning is learning what they can do outside class.


----------



## Danny T

My format:
Warm ups and exercises related to the movements to be utilized.
Moments drills - footwork or ground depending on the material being covered.
2 person drills working as a feeder for the other or vice versa. These are interactive drills with both sides learning.
Higher speed drilling with the feeder being a bit more illusive while chasing the timing with baiting and faking attacks.
Controlled, technical sparring. (with coaching) Then continued technical sparring.
Free sparring (depending on the practitioners level)


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> This is one of the areas where I think discussion of TMA goes off the rails. What it looks like isn’t really material, in my opinion. If the principles are followed, it’s valid to the art in question.



But if there's a huge debate within the art in question about what is effective and what is the "real" version of the art, then are the principles of the art being followed?

This seems rather alien to me in all honesty. It's almost like people are operating from dogma and faith instead of science and reason.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I also often give specific homework assignments. The idea is to get them used to the idea (and develop the habit) of doing things outside class. Sometime folks don’t do things outside class because they have too many choices, so can’t figure where to put their time. Or they don’t have the experience to put together something to work on, so part of their learning is learning what they can do outside class.


This is why you start the habit on day one.  When you know just a little, you have only a little to work on (even if you work on it a lot).  As you learn more, you have more you can work on.  The the growth in material is gradual.  It is easy to understand when it is gradual, no need to be overwhelmed by too many choices.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> ....It's almost like people are operating from dogma and faith instead of science and reason.



I can't decide whether I should click on "Funny", "Like", or "Agree".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> But if there's a huge debate within the art in question about what is effective and what is the "real" version of the art, then are the principles of the art being followed?
> 
> This seems rather alien to me in all honesty. It's almost like people are operating from dogma and faith instead of science and reason.


Some folks are married to the idea of their style. They tend to sow divisiveness within their art, because they do tend to be pretty dogmatic. My experience from talking with folks in the WC forums here is that there are a few dogmatic folks (one specific branch I've talked with seems to foster that). Within TMA in general, there are also quite a few folks who just like exploring an art for the sake of that art (often beyond some basic competecy). Those folks (including me, at times) enjoy getting into the weeds of what the style is, which really has little to do with what works in a real fight. I suspect some students get that from their instructor and it becomes more extreme over time, such that the general principles turn into rules, and that can break down a system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> This is why you start the habit on day one.  When you know just a little, you have only a little to work on (even if you work on it a lot).  As you learn more, you have more you can work on.  The the growth in material is gradual.  It is easy to understand when it is gradual, no need to be overwhelmed by too many choices.


Even at the beginning a new student feels overwhelmed. And there are things they aren't really equipped to develop on their own yet, so I like to give them some direction on what to work on and how.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Even at the beginning a new student feels overwhelmed. And there are things they aren't really equipped to develop on their own yet, so I like to give them some direction on what to work on and how.


Of course.  This is par for the course in learning something new.  Begin on day one.  Just Do it.


----------



## hunschuld

Is anyone actually fighting with Wing Chun?


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Is anyone actually fighting with Wing Chun?



In regards to distance control and fighting range, what’s the biggest issue you see with wing chun  today?


----------



## drop bear

Jens said:


> In regards to distance control and fighting range, what’s the biggest issue you see with wing chun  today?



They don't win the entry or win the exit.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> They don't win the entry or win the exit.


Or the in between unfortunately.

The thing about all disciplines, martial or otherwise is that they improve over time, assuming they are being put to the test. Model Ts won't win a competitive race against modern vehicles, just as hundreds of years old fighting systems can't compare to what we have now if they are held frozen in time by dogma and never truly tested.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

geezer said:


> On another thread, _*Nobody Important* _posed the following question:
> 
> _Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. *Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?*_
> 
> It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?


Of course it is used in a wrong way! First of all, the 90% thinks that they can use punches like in training.. Or that the punch in Wing Chun must be straight))) Have a look at this analysis. It explains why they are beaten up... The wrong punches, the myhtical chain punches that are nothing at all...


----------



## geezer

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Of course it is used in a wrong way! First of all, the 90% thinks that they can use punches like in training.. Or that the punch in Wing Chun must be straight))) Have a look at this analysis. It explains why they are beaten up... The wrong punches, the myhtical chain punches that are nothing at all...



You are responding to an old comment I quoted by member "Nobody Important" who hasn't posted here in over three years. And you have responded by re-posting the same video by "Sifu Nick" ...is that _you_, or perhaps _your sifu?_ Regardless, he makes some valid points about range and methods of punching, but nothing earth-shaking that we haven't seen before. 

The real problem here is that both you and "Sifu Niko" use a lot of terms like "right" and "wrong", "authentic" and so forth. Everyone out there, including the "phonies" uses _that_ language. To be really convincing, you probably should show some good, live sparring clips to show how your training looks in a free and unstructured format against live resistance. 

Does it look different _in actual application_ from other approaches to WC? Is it far more effective? How do approach different kinds of fighters, like heavy kickers (Muay Thai, etc.) or grapplers? I'm not asking for pro MMA stuff. Just live sparring by some good students. The kind of stuff guys like Alan Orr post. Otherwise, it all comes across like just another sifu talking up his _special_ system. Even I can do that ....if you don't ask me to back it up. I maybe just an old fart in real life, but I'm a badass on a keyboard! 

Seriously, though, do you have anything like that you can share?


----------



## Poppity

geezer said:


> You are responding to an old comment I quoted by member "Nobody Important" who hasn't posted here in over three years. And you have responded by re-posting the same video by "Sifu Nick" ...is that _you_, or perhaps _your sifu?_ Regardless, he makes some valid points about range and methods of punching, but nothing earth-shaking that we haven't seen before.
> 
> The real problem here is that both you and "Sifu Niko" use a lot of terms like "right" and "wrong", "authentic" and so forth. Everyone out there, including the "phonies" uses _that_ language. To be really convincing, you probably should show some good, live sparring clips to show how your training looks in a free and unstructured format against live resistance.
> 
> Does it look different _in actual application_ from other approaches to WC? Is it far more effective? How do approach different kinds of fighters, like heavy kickers (Muay Thai, etc.) or grapplers? I'm not asking for pro MMA stuff. Just live sparring by some good students. The kind of stuff guys like Alan Orr post. Otherwise, it all comes across like just another sifu talking up his _special_ system. Even I can do that ....if you don't ask me to back it up. I maybe just an old fart in real life, but I'm a badass on a keyboard!
> 
> Seriously, though, do you have anything like that you can share?




I think it's a pretty much given that they are one and the same person, there was even a lengthy "quote" Nik wrote out which he attributed to his "sifu" as opposed to himself.

But then all great men refer to themselves in the third person such as Julius Caesar and that snark fellow who has really true and great points.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> In regards to distance control and fighting range, what’s the biggest issue you see with wing chun  today?




 Very difficult question. My answer is based on facing trained fighters not drunks in a bar or standard untrained jerks.Most wing chun can be effective against these types. Also no sucker punching WC that many do. 
So start with receive what comes. All wing chun has the Kuit. I see very few examples  of people able to apply it. Receive requires the proper use of the body.
Also the understanding that fighting is about use of energy. How to receive energy and how to issue energy. . Most don't understand that we each have our own fighting range. This is part of receive. When your opponent enters your range you move to receive him.


----------



## Callen

hunschuld said:


> Also no sucker punching WC that many do.


In your opinion, what are some examples of sucker punching in WC?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> how to issue energy.


The training that borrow the counterforce from the ground (bend legs -> straight legs) is not emphasized during the WC beginner level training. Also the maximum punching distance is not addressed.

Both maximum power and maximum reach are not addressed.


----------



## APL76

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The training that borrow the counterforce from the ground (bend legs -> straight legs) is not emphasized during the WC beginner level training. Also the maximum punching distance is not addressed.
> 
> Both maximum power and maximum reach are not addressed.




Have you ever watched Pin Choi from Guangzhou wing chun?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

APL76 said:


> Have you ever watched Pin Choi from Guangzhou wing chun?


I can only compare this with Ip Men's WC with common sense. All power come from the ground. So 

bend leg -> straight leg 

is a must if maximum power generation is your concern.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The training that borrow the counterforce from the ground (bend legs -> straight legs) is not emphasized during the WC beginner level training. Also the maximum punching distance is not addressed.
> 
> Both maximum power and maximum reach are not addressed.


 I am not sure I understand why you posted a video of a wing chun turning punch training. I do agree that most WC does not use the lower body well. However that does not mean all WC. We train how to use the lower body and how to absorb ,manipulate and issue force from the first day.


----------



## hunschuld

Callen said:


> In your opinion, what are some examples of sucker punching in WC?


 I think everyone knows what a sucker punch is.Hitting someone first before you know if they truly mean you harm.It is not an example of having any real level of fighting ability. 

Also as a former Public defender I can say throwing the first punch is a great way to get arrested and face a civil suit. If a person has skills they will use their legs instead of throwing a first punch. More effective and witnesses are far less likely to actually see what happened.


----------



## Callen

hunschuld said:


> I think everyone knows what a sucker punch is.Hitting someone first before you know if they truly mean you harm.It is not an example of having any real level of fighting ability.


Wait... this is actually a thing? For real?

My apologies, I wasn't looking for the actual definition of a sucker punch. Like you said, everyone understands what it means. I was more interested in examples of what you’re basing your opinion on.

I have never heard that the WC community has a significant problem with practitioners just hitting (sucker punching) other people without knowing if there is a true threat first. To me, this is a very unique perspective.

Is this a cultural observation that you have made, a lineage based opinion etc... Can you give some examples of how you have come to the conclusion that a lot of people in WC are doing this?


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> Wait... this is actually a thing? For real? ...I have never heard that the WC community has a significant problem with practitioners just hitting (sucker punching) other people without knowing if there is a true threat first. To me, this is a very unique perspective.



Of course it's real, Callen! It's the first thing we train. We call it _pre-emptive defense_. To pass their first rank test, all students must get a friend to video them applying a good, solid pre-emptive punch on an attacker.

A very important part is _attacker selection_. Students need to chose a _solo-aggressor _with no friends or support near by, and be certain there are no witnesses or cameras around. Additionally, they need to identify an aggressor that will not be able to take their punch and then snap back and beat the tar out of them.

Generally I recommend that students disguise themselves as boy scouts and look for aggressive little old ladies. They put on their ski-masks, get the video running and then preemptively punch the old bag. Then they grab the purse, and come back to the kwoon, making sure they aren't followed. They show me the video, give me the contents of the old lady's purse and I promote them in rank.

Isn't that how everybody does it?


----------



## geezer

OK I admit that I don't really send students out to mug old ladies. I was just having a "Master Ken" moment!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> I do agree that most WC does not use the lower body well.


Do you agree that "leg bend -> leg straight" is a MUST for maximum power generation?







It's not used in the WC forms. Why?


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you agree that "leg bend -> leg straight" is a MUST for maximum power generation?



_*Nope*_. Leg bend to Leg straight is NOT the only way to generate power.

There are a many different ideas about power generation. A lot of Southern Kung-fu embraces the _fou jum tun tou _or _float, sink, swallow, spit _methodology. Wing Chun doesn't ...at least not so _visibly. _I think we actually do use those "energies" but in WC, they are very small movements that aren't outwardly apparent as much as they are felt as you progress.

I actually prefer a similar but slightly different breakdown of four methods of generating power that I use teaching Escrima: _Drop, rise, pivot, press forward._

In the _Latosa Escrima_ that is my FMA foundation, _weight drop_ is the biggie of power generation, and GM Latosa, even as an older guy, can develop tremendous power. His specialty is short power, and by doing very small, incremental drop-steps, he can put weight drop into multiple punches. It's pretty much like what Jack Dempsey describes in his book, _Championship Boxing_.

Now if you drop your weight, no matter how incrementally, eventually, you must rise up again, and _rising_ under a punch is also a great way to put your body into it. When you link the two, you can just keep the energy going like a bouncing ball.

Next comes _pivoting_ or rotation. Everybody uses that, right?

And lastly, there is _pressing forward _...stepping, lunging, or just exploding energy forward behind your strike.

Now, if you combine several of these attributes with good structure and kinetic linkages, proper timing, and explosiveness you are really on to something. You strike _dropping weight_ as you _pivot and press forward_, then bounce back up _rising_ as you continue stepping, _pressing forward_ and _pivoting back_.

Sounds complicated but if I demonstrate it, you can see it even in Wing Chun, and if I give you a stick and run you through some basic escrima moves, it becomes _obvious._


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Now if you drop your weight, no matter how incrementally, eventually, you must rise up again, and _rising_ under a punch is also a great way to put your body into it. When you link the two, you can just keep the energy going like a bouncing ball.


In that clip, you only punch when you rise up. But you can also punch when you drop down. This is the famous CMA technique "black tiger eats the heart" that you

- raise up to punch your opponent's face.
- drop down to punch his cheat.

For the

1. face punch - the bending legs is the compress, and the face punch is the release.
2. chest punch - the straight legs is the compress, and the chest punch is the release.

IMO, if you truly want to borrow the counter force from the ground, you have to use leg bend -> leg straight method.


----------



## geezer

BTW the students in that video are_ not _showing "maximum power generation". Their method of pivoting, rotating around a central axis, pulling one arm back as they extend the other essentially throws a good part of their power "out the back door".  

If "maximum" power is the goal, then they should pivot like a door being slammed i.e. as though one side was a hinge forcing the other side to press forward as you pivot. This combines pivoting and forward pressing energies. Add to that rising or dropping force and you are on to something. I learned that from escrima, then found out that a friend of mine who is a boxer did the same thing, then saw a clip by a karateka, Ian Abernathy who advocated the same concept.... well you get the drift.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, if you truly want to borrow the counter force from the ground, you have to use leg bend -> leg straight method.


The question is how much leg bend and straightening is optimal. I would suggest that when you put it together right, _smaller is better!

._...OK, I know I'm gonna catch flack for the way I worded that!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> The question is how much leg bend and straightening is optimal. I would suggest that when you put it together right, _smaller is better!
> 
> ._...OK, I know I'm gonna catch flack for the way I worded that!


I agree that sometime small is better than large. But it's easier to learn larger and then reduce it to small than the other way around.

I have discussed this issue with many CMA teachers. They all agree that it's very difficult to skip the large training and jump right into the small training for the beginner.

Also large move can stretch your body to the maximum. The beginners need that full body stretching.

In the following clip, does he need to drop his upper body like this in fighting? Of course not. But this training can help him to develop "身法 (Shen Fa) - body method".

After this training, he will understand that power generation is from the body and not from the arm (the opposite of freeze the body, just move the arm).


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you agree that "leg bend -> leg straight" is a MUST for maximum power generation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not used in the WC forms. Why?


----------



## hunschuld

Yes, Wing Chun uses the 7 bows for power.Knee is  3rd bow. Lock knee and no power issue or power absorption. Very first day of our WC training starts with this. Also I agree with using large exaggerated movements to train your body. Usage can be very small and tight almost imperceptible .


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> BTW the students in that video are_ not _showing "maximum power generation". Their method of pivoting, rotating around a central axis, pulling one arm back as they extend the other essentially throws a good part of their power "out the back door".
> 
> If "maximum" power is the goal, then they should pivot like a door being slammed i.e. as though one side was a hinge forcing the other side to press forward as you pivot. This combines pivoting and forward pressing energies. Add to that rising or dropping force and you are on to something. I learned that from escrima, then found out that a friend of mine who is a boxer did the same thing, then saw a clip by a karateka, Ian Abernathy who advocated the same concept.... well you get the drift.


I disagree.  Rotating around a central axis is a way to generate amazing power.  It does not throw the power out the back door unless of course you are doing it poorly.

The door-slamming method can abridge the rotation and fail to maximize power from that pivot.  Unless of course you are doing it correctly.

See what I did there?

What I agree on is that neither is the only way to generate amazing power.  But whichever way you subscribe to, it takes a dedication to the method and a lot of training and consistency.


----------



## wckf92

Flying Crane said:


> See what I did there?


----------



## wckf92

Some here seem to be befuddled by the simple idea of generating power through opposite actions. It is a BASIC idea, seeded in SLT....which is a "little idea", and expressed elsewhere in the forms.


----------



## wckf92

Flying Crane said:


> It does not throw the power out the back door unless of course you are doing it poorly.



Completely agree


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Of course it's real, Callen! It's the first thing we train. We call it _pre-emptive defense_. To pass their first rank test, all students must get a friend to video them applying a good, solid pre-emptive punch on an attacker.
> 
> A very important part is _attacker selection_. Students need to chose a _solo-aggressor _with no friends or support near by, and be certain there are no witnesses or cameras around. Additionally, they need to identify an aggressor that will not be able to take their punch and then snap back and beat the tar out of them.
> 
> Generally I recommend that students disguise themselves as boy scouts and look for aggressive little old ladies. They put on their ski-masks, get the video running and then preemptively punch the old bag. Then they grab the purse, and come back to the kwoon, making sure they aren't followed. They show me the video, give me the contents of the old lady's purse and I promote them in rank.
> 
> Isn't that how everybody does it?


----------



## geezer

wckf92 said:


> Some here seem to be befuddled by the simple idea of generating power through opposite actions. It is a BASIC idea, seeded in SLT....which is a "little idea", and expressed elsewhere in the forms.



_Befuddled?_ I thought I was the only one around here still using ridiculous words like that. Well, if you say _befuddled _I must then stand corrected and confess that I have, if not spoken in error, have at the very least, _overstated_ my case.

Regarding pivoting or rotation: In the gif John posted, the students are combining two methods of power generation: rising and rotation. In the WC I train we typically combine forward pressure and pivoting. The Escrima I train uses the door-slam method of power generation, which also works to combine rotation with forward pressure (as well as dropping and rising).

Pivoting _without _forward pressure (or forward intent) tends to lead to withdrawing energy on one side to throw it back on the other. We find this to be problematic. In a_ tan-sau_ and punch movement for example, we do not _withdraw _energy with the _tan-sau_. Instead, we express a soft, flexible forward pressure with the _tan-sau _and a strong, explosive pressure with the punch.

In fact we avoid _pulling inward _as a rule, even with movements such as _lap-da_. Our _lap-sau_ does not withdraw inward. If combined with a sudden pivot, it can jerk our opponent forward (toward us) but it still presses outward in relation to our own body. There is no "grab the hand and put it in your pocket" thinking like in the Kempo I studied briefly, long ago.

Perhaps your WC is different?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> generating power through opposite actions.


What you have described remind this clip.

But I don't think that's the power generation you try to describe - generate power from stretching to one extreme and then bounce back to the other extreme along with forward momentum.

His punch coordinates with his leading foot landing nicely.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you agree that "leg bend -> leg straight" is a MUST for maximum power generation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not used in the WC forms. Why?



We can probably find record breaking punches and see if they leg bend.

Which at a quick look. Is this guy.


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> methods of power generation



...could be an interesting topic for a new thread?


----------



## geezer

hunschuld said:


> Yes, Wing Chun uses the 7 bows for power.Knee is  3rd bow. Lock knee and no power issue or power absorption. Very first day of our WC training starts with this. Also I agree with using large exaggerated movements to train your body. Usage can be very small and tight almost imperceptible .



How do you define _the seven bows?_

That particular terminology was not used by my old sifu. Since then I have come to break down the kinetic linkage based on my limited grasp of his teachings as follows, from ground up (lik chung de he):

_ankle -> knee -> hip -> spine (seen as a flexible unit) -> shoulder -> elbow -> wrist. 
_
This seven-joint breakdown works better for me than the "seven bows" I've heard articulated by others, such as Hendrick Santos. He includes the foot, which doesn't really work for me since it is not a joint (linkage), but a rigid unit (at least _my_ feet are rigid - due to congenital bone-fusions). The importance of _the spine_ in power generation was included in my old sifu's instruction, but really brought to my attention by Emin Boztepe (see 0:54 - 1:10 below):


----------



## Flying Crane

> Pivoting _without _forward pressure (or forward intent) tends to lead to withdrawing energy on one side to throw it back on the other. We find this to be problematic. In a_ tan-sau_ and punch movement for example, we do not _withdraw _energy with the _tan-sau_. Instead, we express a soft, flexible forward pressure with the _tan-sau _and a strong, explosive pressure with the punch.
> .


@geezer I think what you may be experiencing here is the application of a methodology on a platform for which it wasn’t designed.  Wing Chun has a methodology and a foundation upon which it works. A method like Tibetan Crane, that uses the kind of rotation that you are describing, functions on a different foundation and also works very very well.  There is no right or wrong here.  They both work well, provided they are on the proper foundation for which they were designed.  This is why I say consistency in the methodology is very important.  For example, when people mix elements from different systems, I feel they often overlook this point and end with a mix of things that don’t work well together, even though each of those things works very well when in the proper context of the methodology for which they were designed.

I think this is often an error that people make when they look at different systems through the lens of the system that they train.  That is a biased view and can lead to inaccurate conclusions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> _ankle -> knee -> hip -> spine (seen as a flexible unit) -> shoulder -> elbow -> wrist._







Let's put the style difference aside. If he can extend his punching arm further (in the following clip), he can have further reach, and be able to generate more punching power.

What's your opinion on this?


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's put the style difference aside. If he can extend his punching arm further (as in the following clip), he can have further reach, and be able to generate more punching power.  ...What's your opinion on this?



Really you are comparing apples and oranges. 

All striking arts use different punches for different situations. Even Wing Chun (at least the branch I trained) has the straight punch, the lifting punch, a hooking punch, and even a rarely used long-bridge punch (not too dissimilar from that shown in your gif) called "Battle Punch" or "Bow and Arrow Punch". In my branch, "battle punches" are primarily for training and conditioning, but other WC lineages use them for long range attacks. A couple of years back, I met a sifu under Duncan Leung who used them in sparring. Here's a video posted by that lineage:






Now, as to why these punches are not commonly used in Wing Chun? ...Well we emphasize close range fighting with bridge contact. This is a longer range technique. It is not effective at close range, and furthermore if applied too close, your opponent can deflect it, turn your "bladed" body aside and move in to take your back.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> Really you are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> All striking arts use different punches for different situations. Even Wing Chun (at least the branch I trained) has the straight punch, the lifting punch, a hooking punch, and even a rarely used long-bridge punch (not too dissimilar from that shown in your gif) called "Battle Punch" or "Bow and Arrow Punch". In my branch, "battle punches" are primarily for training and conditioning, but other WC lineages use them for long range attacks. A couple of years back, I met a sifu under Duncan Leung who used them in sparring. Here's a video posted by that lineage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as to why these punches are not commonly used in Wing Chun? ...Well we emphasize close range fighting with bridge contact. This is a longer range technique. It is not effective at close range, and furthermore if applied too close, your opponent can deflect it, turn your "bladed" body aside and move in to take your back.



I was originally taught the arrow punch was for long-range punching as well, but Having learned more of the HK method rather than the European method of WT, my Hong Kong teacher insists that the arrow punching, or as some people refer to it, battle punches, is strictly for teaching proper trajectory of long Pole and using the core.... he says that has nothing to do with actual empty hand fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Really you are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> All striking arts use different punches for different situations. Even Wing Chun (at least the branch I trained) has the straight punch, the lifting punch, a hooking punch, and even a rarely used long-bridge punch (not too dissimilar from that shown in your gif) called "Battle Punch" or "Bow and Arrow Punch". In my branch, "battle punches" are primarily for training and conditioning, but other WC lineages use them for long range attacks. A couple of years back, I met a sifu under Duncan Leung who used them in sparring. Here's a video posted by that lineage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as to why these punches are not commonly used in Wing Chun? ...Well we emphasize close range fighting with bridge contact. This is a longer range technique. It is not effective at close range, and furthermore if applied too close, your opponent can deflect it, turn your "bladed" body aside and move in to take your back.


I agree 100% with what you have said in this post.

May be we should separate power generation away from speed generation (used in short range fighting). When I talk about power generation, I don't consider speed generation, short distance, or long distance.

IMO, if we mix power generation and speed generation, there will be no black and white but grey.

1. Power generation - body push arm.
2. Speed generation - body chase arm.

The reality is not be 1, or 2. The reality is between 1 and 2.

In this clip, each and every his punches take about 1 second to complete. From the speed point of view, his opponent will be long one.

Also as you have said, "It is not effective at close range, and furthermore if applied too close, your opponent can deflect it, turn your "bladed" body aside and move in to take your back".






For everything that I train, I train in 2 different ways. For example,

I train

- 1 step 3 punches for speed generation (with 75% body rotation).
- 1 step 1 punch for power generation (with 100% body rotation).

Do WC people separate these 2 different training, or they always mix both training together?


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> Really you are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> All striking arts use different punches for different situations. Even Wing Chun (at least the branch I trained) has the straight punch, the lifting punch, a hooking punch, and even a rarely used long-bridge punch (not too dissimilar from that shown in your gif) called "Battle Punch" or "Bow and Arrow Punch". In my branch, "battle punches" are primarily for training and conditioning, but other WC lineages use them for long range attacks. A couple of years back, I met a sifu under Duncan Leung who used them in sparring. Here's a video posted by that lineage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as to why these punches are not commonly used in Wing Chun? ...Well we emphasize close range fighting with bridge contact. This is a longer range technique. It is not effective at close range, and furthermore if applied too close, your opponent can deflect it, turn your "bladed" body aside and move in to take your back.



Ya beat me to it @geezer . This was the video I was going to post to lend some context. Thanks. Your reply speed has 'befuddled' me!  haha


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do WC people separate these 2 different training, or they always mix both training together?



Can't speak for the entire WC community but in my upbringing this was a staple exercise beginning on week 1. One step one punch, then two, then three, etc.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> I was originally taught the arrow punch was for long-range punching as well, but Having learned more of the HK method rather than the European method of WT, my Hong Kong teacher insists that the arrow punching, or as some people refer to it, battle punches, is strictly for teaching proper trajectory of long Pole and using the core.... he says that has nothing to do with actual empty hand fighting.



I have to agree. That is also what I was taught in the WT lineage, but apparently some other branches see it differently. 

Personally, I think it's a good thing that people take different approaches. Kinda like genetic diversity in a species. Makes us stronger.


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Really you are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> All striking arts use different punches for different situations. Even Wing Chun (at least the branch I trained) has the straight punch, the lifting punch, a hooking punch, and even a rarely used long-bridge punch (not too dissimilar from that shown in your gif) called "Battle Punch" or "Bow and Arrow Punch". In my branch, "battle punches" are primarily for training and conditioning, but other WC lineages use them for long range attacks. A couple of years back, I met a sifu under Duncan Leung who used them in sparring. Here's a video posted by that lineage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as to why these punches are not commonly used in Wing Chun? ...Well we emphasize close range fighting with bridge contact. This is a longer range technique. It is not effective at close range, and furthermore if applied too close, your opponent can deflect it, turn your "bladed" body aside and move in to take your back.


Is this punch an example of what you were objecting to earlier, in the pivot around a center point method, vs the slamming door pivot?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> my Hong Kong teacher insists that the arrow punching, or as some people refer to it, battle punches, is strictly for teaching proper trajectory of long Pole and using the core.... he says that has nothing to do with actual empty hand fighting.


WC has arrow punch. But WC people don't use it in fighting. It doesn't make logic sense to me.

A: WC is good in short range fighting.
B: WC is also good in long range fighting because WC has arrow punch.
A: But WC people do not use arrow punch.
B: Why?
A: ...

It seems to me that WC people put this restriction on themselves without a good reason for it.

Will a WC guy train roundhouse kick but never use it in fighting? Why?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I don't think the "bow and arrow punch -> horse stance punch" is not effective in close range.

1. A uses leading hand to parry down B's leading arm.
2. A throws a face punch with his back hand toward B's face (bow and arrow punch).
3. B raises arm to block that face punch.
4. A's leading hand punch toward B's chest (horse stance punch).

A can do 1,2,3,4 without moving his feet (short range).


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC has arrow punch. But WC people don't use it in fighting. It doesn't make logic sense to me.



One could say the exact same thing for a lot of martial arts.


----------



## wckf92

...somehow I feel like this thread has meandered off course a wee bit


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> One could say the exact same thing for a lot of martial arts.


Such as? Do you have any example?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> ...somehow I feel like this thread has meandered off course a wee bit


I assume we are still talking about WC and fighting.

WC people say that WC is not effective in long range. But WC already has the long range tool such as the "bow arrow stance punch".


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't think the "bow and arrow punch -> horse stance punch" is not effective in close range.



Don't confuse 'conditioning' with 'application'


----------



## Flying Crane

wckf92 said:


> Don't confuse 'conditioning' with 'application'


What is the conditioning being done with that punch?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC people say that WC is not effective in long range. But WC already has the long range tool such as the "bow arrow stance punch".



IME, WC has both long range and short range methods. Yin and Yang.


----------



## wckf92

Flying Crane said:


> What is the conditioning being done with that punch?



In post # 651...that drill he is doing trains the horse, the punch, rotation mechanics, etc etc and overall is a really hard drill to do. It kills the major muscles in the upper legs, the calf muscles, and done for many consecutive reps can even get the lungs/cardio effect going.


----------



## Flying Crane

wckf92 said:


> In post # 651...that drill he is doing trains the horse, the punch, rotation mechanics, etc etc and overall is a really hard drill to do. It kills the major muscles in the upper legs, the calf muscles, and done for many consecutive reps can even get the lungs/cardio effect going.


Got it, it’s a general martial conditioning thing,  it not a direct wing Chun specific conditioning.  Would you agree with that?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> IME, WC has both long range and short range methods. Yin and Yang.


During his 2nd horse stance punch, his

- right fist,
- right shoulder, and
- left shoulder

make a perfect straight line. That's long range punch.

The question is will all WC guys use it in fighting?


----------



## wckf92

Flying Crane said:


> Got it, it’s a general martial conditioning thing,  it not a direct wing Chun specific conditioning.  Would you agree with that?



Hmmm....can't say. Don't really know. I only know it as a WC training/conditioning drill (one of MANY). WC likes to be efficient so IME some drills may pack a lot of attributes and tools into the toolbox to make the best use of training time, reps, etc.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> During his 2nd horse stance punch, his
> 
> - right fist,
> - right shoulder, and
> - left shoulder
> 
> make a perfect straight line. That's long range punch.
> 
> The question is will all WC guys use it in fighting?



Nobody can answer that question dude. Nobody can speak for "all WC guys". I guess all I am saying is that you can't look at this and take it literally. No more than you would look at a boxer training on the speed bag and ask "how come you don't fight like that"? etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Nobody can answer that question dude. Nobody can speak for "all WC guys". I guess all I am saying is that you can't look at this and take it literally. No more than you would look at a boxer training on the speed bag and ask "how come you don't fight like that"? etc.


Do you think it's a reasonable question to ask

- Why don't you fight the same way as you train?
- You have a long range tool in your toolbox but you are not using it. Why?


----------



## Flying Crane

Does anyone fight the way they train?  I mean really?  All training is an approximation to fighting.  Some closer than others, but none are exact.  

It is no mystery that many drills are not meant to be exactly like fighting.  They develop useful attributes nonetheless. Would you go into a boxing gym and tell them they need to change how they train on the speed bag because it isn’t how they fight?  Would you, really?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Does anyone fight the way they train?


May be you should ask, "Does anyone train the way they fight?"

Fighting is the goal. Training is the path to reach to that goal. It should not be the other way around.

For example,

Goal - to be good in roundhouse kick.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in TKD, MT, ...

Goal - to be good to protect my center.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in WC, praying mantis, ...

Goal - to have maximum reach.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in long fist, Tong Bei, Pi Gua, ...

I select MA styles. MA style doesn't select me.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Does anyone fight the way they train?  I mean really?  All training is an approximation to fighting.  Some closer than others, but none are exact.



Almost exactly.

And you see it with BJJ more than anything. And  I think this is because they have such a signature looking system. So you will see BJJ guys in street fights hunting for heel hooks and other esoteric moves. Rather than wildly swinging. That is how they are trained. That is how they perform.

And I think this is why your training should have realistic elements to it in terms of contact, pacing and intent.

I like to use this as an example of how training is fighting. 






That there should be enough tools in your arsenal that you could technically stop an attacker within you sparring rule set. 

Because then if say you get in to a fight you at least know that will work. And it is not as big a jump to try to solve other problems you might encounter.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be you should ask, "Does anyone train the way they fight?"
> 
> Fighting is the goal. Training is the path to reach to that goal. It should not be the other way around.
> 
> For example,
> 
> Goal - to be good in roundhouse kick.
> Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in TKD, MT, ...
> 
> Goal - to be good to protect my center.
> Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in WC, praying mantis, ...
> 
> Goal - to have maximum reach.
> Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in long fist, Tong Bei, Pi Gua, ...
> 
> I select MA styles. MA style doesn't select me.


I guess I don’t find these questions to be meaningful.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Almost exactly.


Yesterday my student asked me, "Why don't you teach form"? I told him that I don't teach form. I only teach "partner drill". When you do partner drill without partner, you get solo form. This way the training and application will be identical.

Here is an example to proof what I have said.

Partner drill:






Solo form = partner drill without partner:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I don’t find these questions to be meaningful.


Do you set up a goal first. You then find a path to reach to it? I don't believe you will set up a path and don't know what your goal is.

1. I want to fight this way, so I train this way.
2. I train this way, so I can fight this way.

I do 1, and I don't do 2.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ....The question is will all WC guys use it in fighting?



Kinda depends on the individual.

When I first started WC, I hung out with a group of Chinese kids. They liked WC, but knew a smattering of other Chinese martial arts too. They trained with a local guy who ran a Chinese restaurant. When they sparred, outsiders, if they they_ lost_, they would get scolded for not applying the correct techniques, but if they _won, _even though using a technique that was, ...er ..."atypical", the instructor would congratulate them and show them how that technique "was really hidden in the system"! 

My take away? Style is important, but winning is _important-er!_   ...Grandmaster Yip is said to have been a bit like that. Maybe we all are. 

Oh and BTW, when I train that "Bow and Arrow Punch" or "Battle Punch" I drop my weight with the punch as I turn sideways and step into the horse stance, then I rise a bit, straightening the back leg as I pivot my hips forward to deliver the rear hand punch. And ya know? That's pretty much what John Wang has been saying we should be doing all along.

Now would I use it in a fight? Probably not ...unless the situation was just right. Decades ago, I beat one of those Chinese kids with a cross-step side kick when he thought he was out of my range. He got up and said, "I didn't know Wing Chun had _that_." Stealing a line from his sifu (the restaurant guy), I replied, "Oh, it's a hidden technique!"


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you set up a goal first. You then find a path to reach to it? I don't believe you will set up a path and don't know what your goal is.
> 
> 1. I want to fight this way, so I train this way.
> 2. I train this way, so I can fight this way.
> 
> I do 1, and I don't do 2.


Probably not in the way that people might typically think of it.

There are ways of moving that are efficient and powerful, and that is useful if you need to fight.  So I practice ways to incorporate those concepts and principles.  But ultimately, what it looks like does not matter.  So do I train like I fight, or fight like I train, or however you might want to put it?  I guess it depends on how you mean.  I think I do.  But again, Maybe not how many people would think of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I think I do.


Do you train a set of techniques on your right side, and a different set of techniques on your left side? If you do, you train for fighting.

My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting.

Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you train a set of techniques on your right side, and another different set of techniques on your left side? If you do, you train for fighting.
> 
> My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting.
> 
> Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.


I train equally on both sides, including weapons.  It’s for fighting.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting. ...Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.



This is a good observation. Fighters don't train to do everything equally, they train to get as good as they can with their preferred tools. A master fencer, archer, or marksman typically doesn't spend equal time training left and right handed either. 

In the martial arts world, back in the day, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace comes to mind. He used his left leg to kick with.


----------



## Callen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC has arrow punch. But WC people don't use it in fighting. It doesn't make logic sense to me.



When you say, "WC has arrow punch", it is important to understand the context in which it is most often utilized. The reason it is not used in fighting is because it is an exercise, not an actual punch.

Not all drills in Wing Chun can be translated into applications. There are many drills like the arrow punch that serve as a developmental step towards learning a specific skill or attribute. The branch I train in for example, uses it as a training tool that compliments the Ping Cheung ( 平槍 ) pole action. It is simply not designed to be a Wing Chun punch.

The pole form further develops the punch. We train the arrow punch tool before the pole form, so the practitioner can focus on their own skill development without the distraction of the actual pole. Think of it as a good habit forming exercise, it breaks codependent habits that weapon forms often create. The arrow punch tool reinforces balance, coordination, a solid core and base… to name a few.

There are more complexities to the arrow punch tool and how it relates to the pole form, but that's just a quick summary to help you get you more familiar.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: WC is good in short range fighting.
> B: WC is also good in long range fighting because WC has arrow punch.
> A: But WC people do not use arrow punch.



Covering distance, hitting from where the hands are, angling, utilization of mobile footwork, timing the attack, etc. Long range, short range... it's all up to how bad you want it. The answers are there. Not all Wing Chun circles subscribe to the theory that you need contact (a bridge) first in order to hit.

IMO, there is far too much emphasis placed on "range" when discussing the functionality of the Wing Chun system as a whole.


----------



## wckf92

Callen said:


> Not all Wing Chun circles subscribe to the theory that you need contact (a bridge) first in order to hit.



Well said.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> Not all drills in Wing Chun can be translated into applications.


But this "black tiger eat heart - bow arrow stance cross -> horse stance jab" is so useful in close range fighting.

- You use leading arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your back hand punch toward his face (bow arrow stance cross).
- When your opponent blocks your cross, you change bow arrow stance into horse stance and use your leading hand to punch on his chest (horse stance jab).

The reverse "horse stance jab -> bow arrow stance cross" is also useful in close range.

- You use back hand to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your leading hand punch toward his chest (horse stance jab).
- When your opponent blocks your jab, you change horse stance into bow arrow stance and use your back hand to punch on his face (bow arrow stance cross).

The difference is whether you use leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm. I'm pretty sure if we search online hard enough, we should be able to find a WC application like this.

I'm also sure that in sparring, to use your leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, you then punch at him is a very common strategy.






A common downward parry (hand trap) -> punch


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But this "black tiger eat heart - bow arrow stance cross -> horse stance jab" is so useful in close range fighting.
> 
> - You use leading arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your back hand punch toward his face (bow arrow stance cross).
> - When your opponent blocks your cross, you change bow arrow stance into horse stance and use your leading hand to punch on his chest (horse stance jab).
> 
> The reverse "horse stance jab -> bow arrow stance cross" is also useful in close range.
> 
> - You use back hand to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your leading hand punch toward his chest (horse stance jab).
> - When your opponent blocks your jab, you change horse stance into bow arrow stance and use your back hand to punch on his face (bow arrow stance cross).
> 
> The difference is whether you use leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm. I'm pretty sure if we search online hard enough, we should be able to find a WC application like this.
> 
> I'm also sure that in sparring, to use your leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, you then punch at him is a very common strategy.


Saying that not all drills in wing Chun can be translated into applications is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to find direct applications in the drills. 

Can you find them?  Sure, of course.  If you find them useful in that way, then use them.  

Let’s not make a false dichotomy where one doesn’t need to be.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Saying that not all drills in wing Chun can be translated into applications is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to find direct applications in the drills.
> 
> Can you find them?  Sure, of course.  If you find them useful in that way, then use them.
> 
> Let’s not make a false dichotomy where one doesn’t need to be.


This is the purpose for online discussion.

A: Not all drills can be translated into applications.
B: Here is an applications in that drills.

I just don't believe that people can't see the combat value for the following clip. I do believe that all MA systems will attack like this most of the time.

- Open your opponent's guard.
- You then punch through.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the purpose for online discussion.
> 
> A: Not all drills can be translated into applications.
> B: Here is an applications in that drills.
> 
> I just don't believe that people can't see the combat value for the following clip.


A and B are not mutually exclusive.  You CAN find direct application in the drills.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> A and B are not mutually exclusive.  You CAN find direct application in the drills.


Do the following 2 statement contradict to each other?

1. Not all drills can be translated into applications.
2. You can always find an applications in the drills.

If 1 is true then 2 is false. If 2 is true then 1 is false.

To prove a statement is wrong, all you need to find just 1 counter-example. My 2 can prove that 1 is wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do the following 2 statement contradict to each other?
> 
> 1. Not all drills can be translated into applications.
> 2. You can always find an applications in the drills.
> 
> If 1 is true then 2 is false. If 2 is true then 1 is false.
> 
> To prove a statement is wrong, all you need to find just 1 counter-example. My 2 can prove that 1 is wrong.


These two statements do contradict each other.  But these are not what was being said before.  What was being said before do not contradict each other.  You slipped in the word “always” which was not there before, and fundamentally changes the meaning.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A common downward parry (hand trap) -> punch



OK, this is a good comparison, and shows how the bow and arrow punch can be applied _in fighting_. However: 1. This is fairly long-bridge by WC standards, and 2. In the second "boxing clip, the stance, weighting, body position, etc. are *not* *WC.* So how can you integrate _this _type of movement into the WC system? The traditional answer I've heard is that _you can't._

Except that _you can_ ...sort of. This is what I do when I move from longer range, where I favor the boxing-like dynamics of Latosa Escrima, into close range WC work. At range I move more like the guy on the right, and as I close and make bridge contact I adopt a Wing Chun stance and orientation. It has worked for me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Do you think the "bow arrow stance cross" can generate more power than other straight punches can?


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> OK, this is a good comparison, and shows how the bow and arrow punch can be applied _in fighting_.



I disagree. The "DRILL" example that @Kung Fu Wang posted is nothing like the video of the AWC drill.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> I disagree. The "DRILL" example that @Kung Fu Wang posted is nothing like the video of the AWC drill.



"Black tiger eat heart - bow arrow stance cross -> horse stance jab" exist in many CMA systems.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I think everyone knows what a sucker punch is.Hitting someone first before you know if they truly mean you harm.It is not an example of having any real level of fighting ability.
> 
> Also as a former Public defender I can say throwing the first punch is a great way to get arrested and face a civil suit. If a person has skills they will use their legs instead of throwing a first punch. More effective and witnesses are far less likely to actually see what happened.





Every martial art have their combat strategies and tactics. This is usually taught at the end of the system after the technical aspects have been mastered to a certain degree. What’s the combat strategies taught in wing chun, and specifically where within the system can they be found?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Jens said:


> What’s the combat strategies taught in wing chun, and specifically where within the system can they be found?


This is a good question.

Does WC emphasize on to use:

- leading hand to open opponent's guard?
- back hand to open opponent's guard?
- arm to control arm?
- leg to control leg?
- kick to set up punch?
- kick to set up kick?
- punch to set up punch?
- punch to set up kick?
- ...

Those strategies are not recorded in those 3 WC forms.


----------



## drop bear

Jens said:


> Every martial art have their combat strategies and tactics. This is usually taught at the end of the system after the technical aspects have been mastered to a certain degree. What’s the combat strategies taught in wing chun, and specifically where within the system can they be found?




The combat strategy is the why of the technique so if you are to have any sort of clue as to what you are doing. They should go together.

And from my very limited time in the chun. Isn't that BOAC or whatever?


----------



## geezer

Combat strategies? Judging from what you see on videos , WC combat strategies are not consistent. Perhaps that is because we (as a group) don't spar enough, and especially don't spar enough with _other styles? _

The strategies I use are mostly my own take, often coming from outside the system (from DTE, for example) and may not be representative of WC in general. And honestly, I don't really spar these days ... so I'd really like to hear from others on this. Where's Danny when you need him?


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> ....Isn't that BOAC or whatever?



BOAC? er _...British Airways???_


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Combat strategies?


I believe the WC people have the responsibility to record the WC combat strategies. It will link WC and fighting nicely.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> BOAC? er _...British Airways???_



I can't remember
 It was something  something arms crossed.


----------



## jlq

Combat strategies are taught in applications you don't find them anywhere as such - other than in the Kuen Kuit. 
The foundation training, the technical training, all is preparing you progressively to implement the strategy/ies of the style. 

If you are not clear about what you are supposed to accomplish how can you train for it?


----------



## Callen

geezer said:


> Combat strategies? Judging from what you see on videos , WC combat strategies are not consistent. Perhaps that is because we (as a group) don't spar enough, and especially don't spar enough with _other styles?_


I agree that we need to test our skill, but I also think there's more to the strategies contained within the WC system than what most of us (as a group) have interpreted.


Jens said:


> What’s the combat strategies taught in wing chun, and specifically where within the system can they be found?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is a good question.
> 
> Does WC emphasize on to use:
> 
> - leading hand to open opponent's guard?
> - back hand to open opponent's guard?
> - arm to control arm?
> - leg to control leg?
> - kick to set up punch?
> - kick to set up kick?
> - punch to set up punch?
> - punch to set up kick?
> - ...
> 
> Those strategies are not recorded in those 3 WC forms.


Good discussion.

In my opinion Wing Chun functionality is about need, experimentation and experience.; and these are directly related to how we train. The system’s strength is its ability to stay applicable and relevant, adapting and changing when needed.

Wing Chun at its core is more a way of training for fighting than it is a group of techniques or pre-determined answers. This gives way for the adaption of its skills, shapes, actions and bio-mechanics, etc… to be applied to new challenges. It allows innovation to develop based on need and experience, which adds to the system’s aliveness and resilience. To a very large degree, it also advocates and teaches us to do what works and to always find ways for improvement.

So if the goal in Wing Chun is to hit with chained attacks, then the system serves as the strategy to utilize all of the concepts and  principles of the system to do so: adapt to the opponent, attack the attack, always pursue center, angle to take position, hands on top, attack and defense in a single action, responsive footwork, direct and efficient,  etc… to name a few. The consistency of strategy in this context, is the ability to implement the skills, concepts and structure of the system to execute those actions.

To say there should be a specific “strategy” in Wing Chun, in my opinion, is to miss the essence of what the system teaches us and the concepts and principles that it encompasses.


----------



## wckf92

Callen said:


> I agree that we need to test our skill, but I also think there's more to the strategies contained within the WC system than what most of us (as a group) have interpreted.
> 
> 
> Good discussion.
> 
> In my opinion Wing Chun functionality is about need, experimentation and experience.; and these are directly related to how we train. The system’s strength is its ability to stay applicable and relevant, adapting and changing when needed.
> 
> Wing Chun at its core is more a way of training for fighting than it is a group of techniques or pre-determined answers. This gives way for the adaption of its skills, shapes, actions and bio-mechanics, etc… to be applied to new challenges. It allows innovation to develop based on need and experience, which adds to the system’s aliveness and resilience. To a very large degree, it also advocates and teaches us to do what works and to always find ways for improvement.
> 
> So if the goal in Wing Chun is to hit with chained attacks, then the system serves as the strategy to utilize all of the concepts and  principles of the system to do so: adapt to the opponent, attack the attack, always pursue center, angle to take position, hands on top, attack and defense in a single action, responsive footwork, direct and efficient,  etc… to name a few. The consistency of strategy in this context, is the ability to implement the skills, concepts and structure of the system to execute those actions.
> 
> To say there should be a specific “strategy” in Wing Chun, in my opinion, is to miss the essence of what the system teaches us and the concepts and principles that it encompasses.



Probably one of the best posts this forum has ever seen IMO. Very nicely put @Callen !


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> adapting and changing when needed.


Do the right thing at the right time can be too abstract.



Callen said:


> hit with chained attacks, ... adapt to the opponent, attack the attack, always pursue center, angle to take position, hands on top, attack and defense in a single action, responsive footwork, direct and efficient,  etc…


That's the goal. But how to achieve that?


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do the right thing at the right time can be too abstract. That's the goal. But *how to achieve that?*



Not through a single plan or strategy. That will vary depending on the particular fighters and the _context._ 

As GGM Yip Man (also GM Wong Shun Leung) is supposed to have said, "Your opponent will tell how to hit him". In other words, _there is no one formula._ You find or create openings and exploit them according to your ability. Every system has its training methods. In Wing Chun that's what chi-sau and sparring are supposed to help with. That and a _good coach._ 

As a well known competitor and coach, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Not through a single plan or strategy.


IMO, it's better to always move in the same way no matter how many fights that you have to deal with. The reason is simple. If you can repeat your strategy 10,000 times, you will be more familiar with your strategy than your opponent does.

One strategy that I like it very much is:

1. Kick at your opponent's leading leg knee joint -> 2. Use your hands to control his arms -> 3. Use your leg to jam his leading leg -> 4. attack.

1. Use kick to close the distance, and put opponent in defense mode.
2. Try to disable your opponent's punching ability (double hooks).
3. Try to disable your opponent's kicking ability (shin bite).

2, 3 are shown in this clip. I call this octopus strategy. I also like to use other strategies such as rhino strategy, zombie arms strategy, double hooks strategy, ...

In other words, my definition of strategy is how to reduce my risk to the minimum when I attack.


----------



## obi_juan_salami

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, it's better to always move in the same way no matter how many fights that you have to deal with. The reason is simple. If you can repeat your strategy 10,000 times, you will be more familiar with your strategy than your opponent does.
> 
> One strategy that I like it very much is:
> 
> 1. Kick at your opponent's leading leg knee joint -> 2. Use your hands to control his arms -> 3. Use your leg to jam his leading leg -> 4. attack.
> 
> 1. Use kick to close the distance, and put opponent in defense mode.
> 2. Try to disable your opponent's punching ability (double hooks).
> 3. Try to disable your opponent's kicking ability (shin bite).
> 
> 2, 3 are shown in this clip. I call this octopus strategy. I also like to use other strategies such as rhino strategy, zombie arms strategy, double hooks strategy, ...
> 
> In other words, my definition of strategy is how to reduce my risk to the minimum when I attack.


i think what the others might be getting at (and how ive always been taught) is that wing chun does not use preplanned combos or 'strategies'. like 'if he does this i will do that' or 'im going to hit him twice to the head and then hit his belly' or some of the strategies you have proposed.

these methods can work to great effect but like all theories they have draw backs such as when the plan doesnt go how you wanted it to. What if the opponent doesnt react or move in the way you expected ? at best this leaves you to abort your initial plan and restart or think of a new one. 
at worst your plan has left you open and you get hit. might work well in sport but in self defence you may not have time to work out your opponent and capistalise on weaknesses in his game that you find during the fight. we arent aiming to fight rounds here.  

instead wing chun trains you through foundation work - to give your body the ability to move naturally, with power and speed, while in a certain structure that is not your natural way of moving. 
technique drills - so you can intercept, evade and deflect oncoming attacks utilising the conditioning from your foundation work
and sensitivity drills - to deal with eratic changes in force from contact utilising your techniques. 
Because these are behaviours, or reactions made natural, this will ideally leave you with the ability to adapt seemlessly to what ever move your opponent makes (especially once you have contact). making it your opponents moves that literally defeat them since the behaviours you have engrained should aim to cut your opponent off or 'corner' them so they are unable to continue as soon as possible (through the famous methods simultaneous attack/defence, unbalancing, interception etc). so wing chun doesnt make plans, just goes with the flow so to speak. of course initiating is an option but like any move you make comes with its inherent risks.


----------



## obi_juan_salami

obi_juan_salami said:


> i think what the others might be getting at (and how ive always been taught) is that wing chun does not use preplanned combos or 'strategies'. like 'if he does this i will do that' or 'im going to hit him twice to the head and then hit his belly' or some of the strategies you have proposed.
> 
> these methods can work to great effect but like all theories they have draw backs such as when the plan doesnt go how you wanted it to. What if the opponent doesnt react or move in the way you expected ? at best this leaves you to abort your initial plan and restart or think of a new one.
> at worst your plan has left you open and you get hit. might work well in sport but in self defence you may not have time to work out your opponent and capistalise on weaknesses in his game that you find during the fight. we arent aiming to fight rounds here.
> 
> instead wing chun trains you through foundation work - to give your body the ability to move naturally, with power and speed, while in a certain structure that is not your natural way of moving.
> technique drills - so you can intercept, evade and deflect oncoming attacks utilising the conditioning from your foundation work
> and sensitivity drills - to deal with eratic changes in force from contact utilising your techniques.
> Because these are behaviours, or reactions made natural, this will ideally leave you with the ability to adapt seemlessly to what ever move your opponent makes (especially once you have contact). making it your opponents moves that literally defeat them since the behaviours you have engrained should aim to cut your opponent off or 'corner' them so they are unable to continue as soon as possible (through the famous methods simultaneous attack/defence, unbalancing, interception etc). so wing chun doesnt make plans, just goes with the flow so to speak. of course initiating is an option but like any move you make comes with its inherent risks.


----------



## yak sao

obi_juan_salami said:


> i think what the others might be getting at (and how ive always been taught) is that wing chun does not use preplanned combos or 'strategies'. like 'if he does this i will do that' or 'im going to hit him twice to the head and then hit his belly' or some of the strategies you have proposed.
> 
> these methods can work to great effect but like all theories they have draw backs such as when the plan doesnt go how you wanted it to. What if the opponent doesnt react or move in the way you expected ? at best this leaves you to abort your initial plan and restart or think of a new one.
> at worst your plan has left you open and you get hit. might work well in sport but in self defence you may not have time to work out your opponent and capistalise on weaknesses in his game that you find during the fight. we arent aiming to fight rounds here.
> 
> instead wing chun trains you through foundation work - to give your body the ability to move naturally, with power and speed, while in a certain structure that is not your natural way of moving.
> technique drills - so you can intercept, evade and deflect oncoming attacks utilising the conditioning from your foundation work
> and sensitivity drills - to deal with eratic changes in force from contact utilising your techniques.
> Because these are behaviours, or reactions made natural, this will ideally leave you with the ability to adapt seemlessly to what ever move your opponent makes (especially once you have contact). making it your opponents moves that literally defeat them since the behaviours you have engrained should aim to cut your opponent off or 'corner' them so they are unable to continue as soon as possible (through the famous methods simultaneous attack/defence, unbalancing, interception etc). so wing chun doesnt make plans, just goes with the flow so to speak. of course initiating is an option but like any move you make comes with its inherent risks.



Very solid explanation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

obi_juan_salami said:


> wing chun doesnt make plans.


A plan is to lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does. Without a plan, you may fight the way that your opponent want you to fight. That's not good.

A low roundhouse kick (or foot sweep) at your opponent's leading leg can be a good plan.


----------



## geezer

OK, here's one simple entry strategy for a Wing Chun guy working against a boxer/striker who favors longer range hand work:

You can move around, hanging back just beyond their jabs and throw fast, low, lead leg kicks to your opponent's leading shin and knee. It's very distracting, it knocks their weight back robbing power from their jabs and straight punches, making it hard for them to step forward and can make them glance downward or lower their guard. That creates an opening to move in to the closer range that Wing Chun favors. Then hit, establish bridge control and hit again and again....

At this point you have to turn off your "thinking" and go with feeling ...what _Obi-juan_ was talking about in his post above.

Note: against a wrestler this would _not_ be a great strategy ("Here, let me stand tall and offer you my leg!") Also, not great against a long-range kicker, since our kicking range is closer and they can reach us first. 

That's why _context_ is important.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A low roundhouse kick (or foot sweep) at your opponent's leading leg can be a good plan.



Question for those who do Muay Thai/ MMA:

Would round kicks be used just as much if short, quick, lead-leg groin kicks were part of the rule set? It seems like that might alter the equation a little when considering self defense applications.  Or maybe it wouldn't matter. Just like to know.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> throw fast, low, lead leg kicks to your opponent's leading shin and knee.


For a striker, you have 4 tools to use here:

1. Low roundhouse kick.
2. Behind ankle foot sweep.
3. Front toes push kick to the knee.
4. Side kick, or reverse side kick to the knee.

The moment that you see your opponent puts weight on his leading leg, the moment that you use any of these 4 tools. In theory, if your opponent can't put weight on his leading leg, he can't punch you.

So don't allow your opponent to put weight on his leading leg is a good plan.

In order to be able to execute your plan, you have to develop your tools first. So your plans can help you to decide what tools that you will need to develop.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For a striker, you have 4 tools to use here:
> 1. Low roundhouse kick.
> 2. Behind ankle foot sweep.
> 3. Front toes push kick to the knee.
> 4. Side kick, or reverse side kick to the knee.



For WC we would probably favor a stomping front kick striking with the bottom of the foot over the push-kick with the toes for _number three_, especially when wearing shoes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> For WC we would probably favor a stomping front kick striking with the bottom of the foot to the push-kick with the toes for _number three_, especially when wearing shoes.


The front heel kick is always 6 inch shorter than the front toes kick.

Which tool is better? IMO, each tool all has it's PRO and CON.

1. Low roundhouse kick - if your opponent turns his shin bone into you, you won't have any advantage.
2. Behind ankle foot sweep - if your opponent bends his leg at his knee joint, he can escape that sweep easily.
3. Front toes push kick to the knee - To use the foot width to kick the leg is harder. But the reach is longer.
4. Side kick, or reverse side kick to the knee - To use the foot length to kick the leg is easier. But the distance is shorter.
5. front heel kick - The distance is also shorter.

This is why, we need to train all those tools so we can change from one to another.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The* front heel kick *is always 6 inch shorter than the front toes kick.



Yeah (even shorter than that if you have huge, long feet ) ....but on the other hand, if you've got boots on, those boot heels really hurt!


----------



## hunschuld

geezer said:


> How do you define _the seven bows?_
> 
> That particular terminology was not used by my old sifu. Since then I have come to break down the kinetic linkage based on my limited grasp of his teachings as follows, from ground up (lik chung de he):
> 
> _ankle -> knee -> hip -> spine (seen as a flexible unit) -> shoulder -> elbow -> wrist.
> _
> This seven-joint breakdown works better for me than the "seven bows" I've heard articulated by others, such as Hendrick Santos. He includes the foot, which doesn't really work for me since it is not a joint (linkage), but a rigid unit (at least _my_ feet are rigid - due to congenital bone-fusions). The importance of _the spine_ in power generation was included in my old sifu's instruction, but really brought to my attention by Emin Boztepe (see 0:54 - 1:10 below):



I understand your POV and do not disagree. For me separating ankle and foot has always been difficult. If Hendrik says 7 bows he is correct.

Think of the foot bow as in sprinting. Runners run of theirs toes to balls of the feet. the heel should never touch the ground. They are using the arch of the foot because it has some flex hence the first bow. This also ties to the maxim of power coming from the ground  Spring energy is  snake energy. Looking only at lower body usage. If I am pushed or grappled I must deal with the incoming energy so I can maintain my balance etc. So hips neutralize  and balance,  knees and ankles compress the power . As the spring compresses it goes into the fool. Then the opposite reaction occurs the arch of the foot begins the expansion . The spring releases energy up. . The spine provides the path for the energy to follow to the uppers bows/joints.so the spine must not be bent or broken . It it is the energy path is broken The  arm has to be in the shoulder socket. If it is out of the socket the connection to the lower body is broken. then to the elbow so then to the wrist . We could also get into the fingers but that is far to esoteric. Each joint must move the proper way to maintain the power flow. This the leads to sink,float spit swallow . this also leads to using the chest for the send strike. I follow spit with sink for example.

Spine is the upper and lower connector but traditionally has its own usages however it is so key as a practical matter nothing really works if spine usage is not understood


----------



## geezer

hunschuld said:


> ....If Hendrik says 7 bows he is correct.



The biggest issue I have with Hendrick is his authentic mastery of the _No-Touch Knockout ..._even over the internet. Just about every time I've tried to watch one of his lengthy clips I've ended up unconscious, in a deep sleep with my face pressed to the keyboard. Something about his presentation, I guess. 

As far as the ankle being a springy "bow" ...that makes sense_ in systems that lift the back heel_, for example JKD and (in my own experience) Latosa Escrima. However, in the WC I've trained, the heel is _not_ lifted, so it can not be exploited the same way to amplify power. And that is especially true for me personally as I was born with congenital bone fusions in both ankles which severely limit ankle movement. On the other hand the spine is naturally constructed with curves and truly does function like a bow.  Even though in WC we may strive to keep a "straight spine" (noon line) and erect posture, the fact is that the spine needs to flex along it's natural curves, and as it does it generates/amplifies our power considerably.


----------



## hunschuld

Hendrik does what he does. I have never spent much time looking at his stuff. I got tired of him last decade. However I give credit to anyone that spends as much time as he seems to in researching and understanding WC. If his stuff matches what I have been taught great if not, oh well.
There has always seemed to be WC differences in the use of the foot. Some turn on K1, some say heel, some whole foot . In the end the best is to the find most efficient for each person. Since we view WC as stand up grappling we do not turn on the heel. we use the whole foot keeping the K1 in contact with the ground.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Every martial art have their combat strategies and tactics. This is usually taught at the end of the system after the technical aspects have been mastered to a certain degree. What’s the combat strategies taught in wing chun, and specifically where within the system can they be found?



This is I think where the teacher and his version of WC come in. My comment on sucker punching is based on while it is a good strategy if you think you are in deep doodoo it has no relation to fighting skill. I could stop every UFC champion if I connect with a sucker punch. However in a fight or if my sucker punch fails I am eating dirt.

Strategies depend on the teacher and the style of WC. For example Yip Chun admits he has never been in a fight.   His suggestions and applications and WC understanding is very different than what you get from Jui Wan or WSL for example


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Every martial art have their combat strategies and tactics. This is usually taught at the end of the system after the technical aspects have been mastered to a certain degree. What’s the combat strategies taught in wing chun, and specifically where within the system can they be found?




 I would say that strategies are the things you need a teacher to show you.  It is not just about strategies but about adaptability. What may work against  person  A wont work against person B and everything changes against person C. I had a friend  and student that had Olympic level skills in Judo.While he really knew every throw and skill he said he really only knew 5 throws . He just knew every variation of those 5 everything else was just window dressing. Overall that is the key to fighting. You don't  need to know a lot but what you know you should know all the ins and out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Strategies depend on the teacher and the style of WC.


I thought to force your opponent to switch sides so you can attack his center is a very important strategy used in the WC system.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I thought to force your opponent to switch sides so you can attack his center is a very important strategy used in the WC system.



_Switch_ sides? I don't know about that. 

IMO it's more important to _turn him aside_ so that he is off center (his centerline is deflected aside) while you are aligned with his center. This is a major strategy. Tactics to achieve this vary. 

Most tactics involve continuously advancing, wedging-in with forward pressure assisted by wedging punches, tan, pak and lap sau. When you can't advance, or even when you're retreating, your techniques should express relentless _forward intent.

_


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> _Switch_ sides? I don't know about that.


When your opponent's chest is 90 degree toward your punch/kick, you will have the maximum area to hit. This can only happen when your opponent switches sides (or use back hand to punch you).










When your opponent stands side way and only uses his leading hand to punch you, your striking area is limited.


----------



## obi_juan_salami

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent's chest is 90 degree toward your punch/kick, you will have the maximum area to hit. This can only happen when your opponent switches sides (or use back hand to punch you).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When your opponent stands side way and only uses his leading hand to punch you, your striking area is limited.


true but then they also now have further to go with their rear hand to reach you.

all these positions have advantages and disadvantages its about how hard you have trained. someone standing square doesnt need to worry about the larger exposed surface area if they have done the training to protect it. the same way a side facing person would need to train great speed, power and revovery with that rear hand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

obi_juan_salami said:


> someone standing square doesnt need to worry about the larger exposed surface area if they have done the training to protect it.


What if your opponent kicks at your belly. His leg is longer than your arm. Your punch can't reach him, but his kick can reach you. If you always have to protect your chest, your opponent has put you in defense mode. IMO, that's not good.

With your "full upper body" exposed to your opponent's kick, it's very difficult for him to miss his kick.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I would say that strategies are the things you need a teacher to show you.



what are the wing chun strategies you show your students?


----------



## obi_juan_salami

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent kicks at your belly. His leg is longer than your arm. Your punch can't reach him, but his kick can reach you. If you always have to protect your chest, your opponent has put you in defense mode. IMO, that's not good.
> 
> With your "full upper body" exposed to your opponent's kick, it's very difficult for him to miss his kick.


well mr wang i suppose my arms would just stay gaurding my chest and i would cop a kick to the gut and vomit blood everywhere and look oh so silly.

arnt we past this? your arms can move as can your feet. you use the training from your given style to evade, block, counter etc. any static position facing or not is vulnerable if you dont move .

what i was getting at is that these fighting styles dont stand in the positions they do for no reason. side facing arts do it for the reasons you mentioned. wing chun typically (not exclusively) faces square because it facilitates other techniques and principles within the style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

obi_juan_salami said:


> well mr wang i suppose my arms would just stay gaurding my chest and i would cop a kick to the gut and vomit blood everywhere and look oh so silly.
> 
> arnt we past this? your arms can move as can your feet. you use the training from your given style to evade, block, counter etc. any static positiosodide facing or not is vulnerable if you dont move .
> 
> what i was getting at is that these fighting styles dont stand in the positions they do for no reason. side facing arts do it for the reasons you mentioned. wing chun typically (not exclusively) faces square because it facilitates other techniques and principles within the style.


It's trade off.

Square stance:

PRO: Both arms have the same reach.
CON. Expose your center. Your chest is exposed to the front kick. Your arm don't have the maximum reach. Your balance is weak front and back.

Side stance:

PRO: You have minimum exposed area. You have maximum reach.
CON: You have 1 long arm and 1 short arm. The back hand has to travel far distance to hit opponent. Your chest is exposed to roundhouse kick. Your balance is weak sideway.


----------



## obi_juan_salami

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's trade off.
> 
> Square stance:
> 
> PRO: Both arms have the same reach.
> CON. Expose your center. Your chest is exposed to the front kick. Your arm don't have the maximum reach. Your balance is weak front and back.
> 
> Side stance:
> 
> PRO: You have minimum exposed area. You have maximum reach.
> CON: You have 1 long arm and 1 short arm. The back hand has to travel far distance to hit opponent. Your chest is exposed to roundhouse kick. Your balance is weak sideway.


thank you


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

So if "strategy = what" then WC should have some strategies.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent kicks at your belly. His leg is longer than your arm. Your punch can't reach him, but his kick can reach you. If you always have to protect your chest, your opponent has put you in defense mode. IMO, that's not good.
> 
> With your "full upper body" exposed to your opponent's kick, it's very difficult for him to miss his kick.



That's not what worries me. Wing Chun's _hands-on-centerline_ approach does a pretty good job protecting the chest and even the head from _straight-on attacks_. Unfortunately, good fighters come in using arcs and angles!!!

OK, yeah there are strategies for dealing with that too, but it _is_ a lot harder.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's trade off.
> 
> Square stance:
> 
> PRO: Both arms have the same reach.
> CON. Expose your center. Your chest is exposed to the front kick. Your arm don't have the maximum reach. Your balance is weak front and back.
> 
> Side stance:
> 
> PRO: You have minimum exposed area. You have maximum reach.
> CON: You have 1 long arm and 1 short arm. The back hand has to travel far distance to hit opponent. Your chest is exposed to roundhouse kick. Your balance is weak sideway.



I can front kick a guy with an angled stance. I throw an angled front kick.

Stabby toe front kicks are really good for sneaking in to gaps.

You defend by managing distance. And parrying.






I am pretty confident that there would be one of the sou's that is basically the same idea


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> While he really knew every throw and skill he said he really only knew 5 throws . He just knew every variation of those 5 everything else was just window dressing. Overall that is the key to fighting. You don't need to know a lot but what you know you should know all the ins and out.



This is super important. Master a few high percentage moves and the rest will take care of itself.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent kicks at your belly



Well, then there is this thing called FOOTWORK


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think it's a reasonable question to ask
> 
> - Why don't you fight the same way as you train?
> - You have a long range tool in your toolbox but you are not using it. Why?


I can't think of a single system I've ever seen that doesn't include some drills (whether for conditioning, or for some other purpose) that don't quite look like their fighting. I don't know how you'd avoid that and still be efficient. I mean, you don't fight with a single-head in your hands. I don't fight with a kettlebell in mine (sparring partners tend to object).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you train a set of techniques on your right side, and a different set of techniques on your left side? If you do, you train for fighting.
> 
> My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting.
> 
> Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.


Why should I invest the time in figuring out what not to train on a given side?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Callen said:


> I agree that we need to test our skill, but I also think there's more to the strategies contained within the WC system than what most of us (as a group) have interpreted.


I would argue that if the students have to find it themselves, it's not actually being taught. Each successive generation is havinng to rediscover it, which isn't very systematic.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I would argue that if the students have to find it themselves, it's not actually being taught. Each successive generation is havinng to rediscover it, which isn't very systematic.


Are they discovering, or are they trying to innovate new ways to compensate for what isn't there?

I know what the answer was for me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Are they discovering, or are they trying to innovate new ways to compensate for what isn't there?
> 
> I know what the answer was for me.


If it's not taught, the two amount to the same thing.


----------



## Poppity

gpseymour said:


> I would argue that if the students have to find it themselves, it's not actually being taught. Each successive generation is havinng to rediscover it, which isn't very systematic.



I dunno I think it might come down to the artistic expression of violence. The art in martial art, maybe.

If you take a single technique from any form and you analyse how to apply it inside, outside, over and under etc. Me as a tallish guy who enjoys getting close has a preference  for over and inside, but then a shortish guy who is defensive is likely to apply the same technique under and outside. That's his attack preference (or artistic expression) from his build and mindset, a teacher can't teach the best way that person should adopt the technique that's down to what feels right to them... and that's what each student needs to discover.

As my old sifu used to say "take what works for you. You can't take everything from the Wing Chun supermarket."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Snark said:


> I dunno I think it might come down to the artistic expression of violence. The art in martial art, maybe.
> 
> If you take a single technique from any form and you analyse how to apply it inside, outside, over and under etc. Me as a tallish guy who enjoys getting close has a preference  for over and inside, but then a shortish guy who is defensive is likely to apply the same technique under and outside. That's his attack preference (or artistic expression) from his build and mindset, a teacher can't teach the best way that person should adopt the technique that's down to what feels right to them... and that's what each student needs to discover.
> 
> As my old sifu used to say "take what works for you. You can't take everything from the Wing Chun supermarket."


That's a difference in application of a given technique. That's not strategy, though your difference in size could also lead to a different preferred strategy (as could disposition, leg speed, etc.). Still, if the students are left to find it themselves, it's not taught. If it's not taught, I'd argue it's not actually in the system (though that doesn't mean it doesn't fit within the system).


----------



## Poppity

gpseymour said:


> That's a difference in application of a given technique. That's not strategy, though your difference in size could also lead to a different preferred strategy (as could disposition, leg speed, etc.). Still, if the students are left to find it themselves, it's not taught. If it's not taught, I'd argue it's not actually in the system (though that doesn't mean it doesn't fit within the system).



Your completely entitled to your view and I respect it, but for me, I disagree. To me it seems that your saying that each time an opponent moves left or right or sinks and rises and I use a man sau to bridge, for example, your saying its a different application.  In my view the application is the intent of the technique, If the intent is the same its the same application.

Further, I kinda disagree with the concept of "if my sifu, sensai didnt teach it its not in the system."  Wing Chun already has oodles and oodles of that... and there is already a huge discrepancy between wing chun lineages and schools of how to apply and perform techniques.... such an approach has lead to a bit of a connundrum in that if  you have two sifus in two different schools on the same road and one teaches one application and the other a different one of the same technique which is the application in the system... unfortunately, in wing chun circles you see a lot of this and then some folks start saying my sifu didn't teach me that so your approach is wrong... etc etc.

Just my view and its a big world so we all are entitled to different ones.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Snark said:


> Your completely entitled to your view and I respect it, but for me, I disagree. To me it seems that your saying that each time an opponent moves left or right or sinks and rises and I use a man sau to bridge, for example, your saying its a different application.  In my view the application is the intent of the technique, If the intent is the same its the same application.


I said "difference in application". Meaning, you're applying it differently.



> Further, I kinda disagree with the concept of "if my sifu, sensai didnt teach it its not in the system."  Wing Chun already has oodles and oodles of that... and there is already a huge discrepancy between wing chun lineages and schools of how to apply and perform techniques.... such an approach has lead to a bit of a connundrum in that if  you have two sifus in two different schools on the same road and one teaches one application and the other a different one of the same technique which is the application in the system... unfortunately, in wing chun circles you see a lot of this and then some folks start saying my sifu didn't teach me that so your approach is wrong... etc etc.
> 
> Just my view and its a big world so we all are entitled to different ones.



If it's not taught, then the student didn't get it from the system. If I figure out how to throw a hook, but was never taught a hook by the people I studied with, then the hook was not within the system as they delivered it. Doesn't mean it can't fit (I learned one elsewhere, decided it fit, and put it into the version I teach). I don't see how you can argue something exists within the system as taught by the instructor, if the instructor isn't teaching it. It rather definitively isn't in what they taught.

That's not to say it doesn't BELONG in there. Nor that it can't be in someone else's version (see my reference to the hook, above). But it wasn't in what that instructor taught.


----------



## yak sao

wckf92 said:


> Well, then there is this thing called FOOTWORK



C'mon now....you know WC doesn't have footwork


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I said "difference in application". Meaning, you're applying it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not taught, then the student didn't get it from the system. If I figure out how to throw a hook, but was never taught a hook by the people I studied with, then the hook was not within the system as they delivered it. Doesn't mean it can't fit (I learned one elsewhere, decided it fit, and put it into the version I teach). I don't see how you can argue something exists within the system as taught by the instructor, if the instructor isn't teaching it. It rather definitively isn't in what they taught.
> 
> That's not to say it doesn't BELONG in there. Nor that it can't be in someone else's version (see my reference to the hook, above). But it wasn't in what that instructor taught.


I think it depends on how the system is being defined.  Seems to me that a lot of people define the system by the body of techniques.  I don’t think that’s the best way.  I think a better way is to define the principles, with a body of techniques that help illustrate how the principles are put to use.  That leaves the door wide open to have room for any technique, as long as it can fit within the principles.  I like to say: even something that isn’t a “proper” technique at all can find a place within the system as an individual may use it. 

So then, is “it” in the system or not, meaning a particular technique? Yes, if it fits within the principles, because you can do anything you want with the system, even if not explicitly taught by the teacher.


----------



## Poppity

(QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 2032709, member: 27826"]I said "difference in application". Meaning, you're applying it differently.,)

I think this application definition might have swerved into personal semantics. I view application as what I want the technique to do, like do I want it to bridge or do I want it to break something. Where the technique bridges (over or under) or where it breaks does not change its application.  But I can completely see where you are coming from if your saying where the technique lands changes its application. Just a different definition.

I don't think it's an outrageous claim to make  that a system can contain a technique, strategy or application that one single instructor or maybe a couple of instructors don't know or have forgotten.

If someone is teaching it in the system elsewhere I don't think you can argue in good faith that it isn't in the system because the aforementioned instructors don't teach it.

It kinda feels that your arguing that a martial system should be limited to what only one particular instructor (or set of instructors) teach/es, and anything outside of that is not in the system. I may have misunderstood, but if that is what your arguing i have to say I do disagree with that.

I see that you mentioned different versions but I am confused as to what you might mean by system, each version is its own system maybe? But if that's the case if one instructor teaches one application of the technique and another teachers two, whose is the system? both separate systems?, the one with more? or if I'm the student of the instructor who teacher one maybe his is the "true" system?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> what are the wing chun strategies you show your students?


This is something I really can not answer due  to time ,depth and the shear number.

However if you are ring fighting one thing is cutting the clock. We also use fast foot work. So always be in motion and keep angles constantly changing, keep changing distance until you are comfortable,receive what comes ie move in when range is entered do not move away. Never move straight back.. There is a long list. some apply only to street fighting some to bar fights some to ring fighting or sparring.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I thought to force your opponent to switch sides so you can attack his center is a very important strategy used in the WC system.


 Always nice to make your opponent uncomfortable but trying to get them to switch sides as a goal has never been a focus for me or my teachers. We do focus on agile footwork , always changing angles and being in motion so in effect it may accomplish the same thing.

We don't attack the center. All attacks should go through the center. This can be done no matter if you are facing front back or sides and all angles in between. Other WC families may do things differently.


----------



## Callen

gpseymour said:


> I would argue that if the students have to find it themselves, it's not actually being taught. Each successive generation is havinng to rediscover it, which isn't very systematic.


Strategy is being taught, it’s just that not everyone understands it the same way.


----------



## wckf92

yak sao said:


> C'mon now....you know WC doesn't have footwork



My bad! hahaha


----------



## hunschuld

a quote from Joe Louis that really gets to the heart of the matter.

I can show you how to box. I can teach you every technique and trick I know, but I can never make you a fighter. That comes from inside, and it's something no one else can ever give you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


>


This is why to train the spin back fist is important. When your opponent spins your body like this, the spin back fist will work pretty good. 

Sometime people may say that the spin back fist is not in their system. The question is what will you do when your opponent spins your kick and let you to expose your back?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The question is what will you do when your opponent spins your kick and let you to expose your back?



My body will react as it was trained to do during the countless hours of forms/drills/exercises that comprise the "system"; which inevitably alter response behavior.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> but trying to get them to switch sides as a goal has never been a focus for me or my teachers.


I wrote a post to explain the reason, I then realize that since the roundhouse kick is not emphasized in the WC system, my post may not apply to a WC thread.

Here is my reason why I want my opponent to switch sides in fighting.

When my opponent and I both have right side forward (uniform stance), my left back leg can only kick on his back (not a good target). My right leg is too close to my opponent and roundhouse kick is not powerful for that distance. I can use front, or side kick, but since my opponent stands side way, my target is limited.

In this pic, the person on the right kicks on his opponent's back which is not a good target.







When my opponent switch sides and changes from right leg forward into left leg forward, his center line will scan across my body. If I can catch that good timing, my left leg roundhouse kick can hit on his chest (a full target).

In this picture, the person on the left switches side from right leg forward into left leg forward. The person on the right kicks out his left back roundhouse kick without any hesitation.

In sparring, you either wait for this opportunity to happen, or you try to create this opportunity for yourself.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I can catch that good timing



With good timing...a lot of stuff can work. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> can hit on his chest (a full target)



Why hit on his chest? Are you referring to a sparring match/point contest, etc?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> With good timing...a lot of stuff can work.


Timing only make sense when opportunity arrive (such as switching sides). After serious training, your body will react properly without any order comes from your brain. 

If you train how to catch timing when your opponent's switching sides, your body will respond faster than those who doesn't train this.



wckf92 said:


> Why hit on his chest? Are you referring to a sparring match/point contest, etc?


- Head target is too small and too high.
- Leg target can't cause serious damage.
- Back target also can't cause serious damage.

The only target left is the front of the body - chest.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Head target is too small and too high.
> - Leg target can't cause serious damage.
> - Back target also can't cause serious damage.
> 
> The only target left is the front of the body - chest.



Ok then. 
But...I'd wager I can cause more damage to a leg where there are joints than a chest where there is large pec muscles, lots of bone, etc. 

Also...wing chun legs typically don't go higher than the groin/waist. I'd stomp kick the dude in the chest if he were already lying at my feet!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> wing chun legs typically don't go higher than the groin/waist. I'd stomp kick the dude in the chest if he were already lying at my feet!


I agree that high kick is risky to be caught. From a wrestler point of view, high kick is not a good idea.

In my yesterday class, we train:

1. Front toes push kick to the knee.
2. Side kick to the knee.
3. Reverse side kick to the knee.
4. Roundhouse kick below the knee.
5. Foot sweep behind the ankle.

All those 5 tools are used below the knee (even lower than the WC's kick that don't go higher than the groin/waist).


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree that high kick is risky to be caught. From a wrestler point of view, high kick is not a good idea.
> 
> In my yesterday class, we train:
> 
> 1. Front toes push kick to the knee.
> 2. Side kick to the knee.
> 3. Reverse side kick to the knee.
> 4. Roundhouse kick below the knee.
> 5. Foot sweep behind the ankle.
> 
> All those 5 tools are used below the knee (even lower than the WC's kick that don't go higher than the groin/waist).



I said WC kicks typically don't go HIGHER than the groin/waist. Didn't mention how low they go. But yes, most WC leg methods I know are from the ground to the groin/waist.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Front toes push kick to the knee.



These can be especially nasty!!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Well, then there is this thing called FOOTWORK


Agree that with good footwork, none of your opponent's attack can land on you. 

Many years ago, my senior SC brother said, "If I keep moving back, what can you do on me?" His question had bothered me for many years. In the past, I have always believed that I can use kick to set up punch, use punch to set up throw. I then realize that I need to use punch to set up clinch first. The moment that my hand can hold on my opponent's wrist, his moving back will pull me into him. So to obtain a clinch ASAP can solve the footwork issue.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> If it's not taught, the two amount to the same thing.


Well, sort of. The first implies it's there but isn't always taught, like..a secret room in your house. It's there, you just might not know.

The second is more of an addition to the house. It ain't there till you build it.

Functionally though it's the same, and of course there will always be those that insist any quality addition was a secret room all along...


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> However if you are ring fighting one thing is cutting the clock.



what’s your definition of “cutting the clock”? Can you give an example?


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I wrote a post to explain the reason, I then realize that since the roundhouse kick is not emphasized in the WC system, my post may not apply to a WC thread.
> 
> Here is my reason why I want my opponent to switch sides in fighting.
> 
> When my opponent and I both have right side forward (uniform stance), my left back leg can only kick on his back (not a good target). My right leg is too close to my opponent and roundhouse kick is not powerful for that distance. I can use front, or side kick, but since my opponent stands side way, my target is limited.
> 
> In this pic, the person on the right kicks on his opponent's back which is not a good target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When my opponent switch sides and changes from right leg forward into left leg forward, his center line will scan across my body. If I can catch that good timing, my left leg roundhouse kick can hit on his chest (a full target).
> 
> In this picture, the person on the left switches side from right leg forward into left leg forward. The person on the right kicks out his left back roundhouse kick without any hesitation.
> 
> In sparring, you either wait for this opportunity to happen, or you try to create this opportunity for yourself.


Maybe initiating contact with a kick just isn’t a good idea.  Maybe it needs to be set up first, to create an opening for a solid kick that is effective and devastating.  A kick is generally a longer range strike, if it just comes in on its own without some kind of set up, it can be seen and defended against.


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> what’s your definition of “cutting the clock”? Can you give an example?



I think he is referring to how a boxer/ring fighter will "circle away from the power hand" using small slices of a pie or degrees on a clock. They tend to go in a slow circle...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I think it depends on how the system is being defined.  Seems to me that a lot of people define the system by the body of techniques.  I don’t think that’s the best way.  I think a better way is to define the principles, with a body of techniques that help illustrate how the principles are put to use.  That leaves the door wide open to have room for any technique, as long as it can fit within the principles.  I like to say: even something that isn’t a “proper” technique at all can find a place within the system as an individual may use it.
> 
> So then, is “it” in the system or not, meaning a particular technique? Yes, if it fits within the principles, because you can do anything you want with the system, even if not explicitly taught by the teacher.


Agreed. Though in this case this was about strategy. My point was that it’s not in the system if the student has to figure it out. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit or belong, but that the instructor left it out. So in this usage, I’m referring to the system delivered to the student by that instructor, not the larger System (or art).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Snark said:


> (QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 2032709, member: 27826"]I said "difference in application". Meaning, you're applying it differently.,)
> 
> I think this application definition might have swerved into personal semantics. I view application as what I want the technique to do, like do I want it to bridge or do I want it to break something. Where the technique bridges (over or under) or where it breaks does not change its application.  But I can completely see where you are coming from if your saying where the technique lands changes its application. Just a different definition.
> 
> I don't think it's an outrageous claim to make  that a system can contain a technique, strategy or application that one single instructor or maybe a couple of instructors don't know or have forgotten.
> 
> If someone is teaching it in the system elsewhere I don't think you can argue in good faith that it isn't in the system because the aforementioned instructors don't teach it.
> 
> It kinda feels that your arguing that a martial system should be limited to what only one particular instructor (or set of instructors) teach/es, and anything outside of that is not in the system. I may have misunderstood, but if that is what your arguing i have to say I do disagree with that.
> 
> I see that you mentioned different versions but I am confused as to what you might mean by system, each version is its own system maybe? But if that's the case if one instructor teaches one application of the technique and another teachers two, whose is the system? both separate systems?, the one with more? or if I'm the student of the instructor who teacher one maybe his is the "true" system?


You’re arguing a claim I didn’t make. And most of e post you quoted was to clarify that. I feel like you’ve decided what I said without really reading my post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Callen said:


> Strategy is being taught, it’s just that not everyone understands it the same way.


That’s obviously a different situation, then.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> if the student has to figure it out.


If the students have to figure out themselves, they have a bad teacher. Students are very smart about whether a teacher just wants the money, or the teacher is willing to teach.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Though in this case this was about strategy. My point was that it’s not in the system if the student has to figure it out. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit or belong, but that the instructor left it out. So in this usage, I’m referring to the system delivered to the student by that instructor, not the larger System (or art).


I understand your point.  I guess what I’m getting at is that no instructor can teach a student everything, meaning all that is possible within a system.  It’s not possible.  All he can do is teach how things work and how they work together and give a student a vision of what is possible and encourage the student to use it creatively.  So there is actually a lot for the student to figure out for himself, through no fault of the teacher.  Then what is “in” the system depends on the individual.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If the students have to figure out themselves, they have a bad teacher. Students are very smart about whether a teacher just wants the money, or the teacher is willing to teach.


The Sifu needs to teach how the foundation works and how the principles are expressed through a wide range of techniques, and convey a vision of what is possible  But a Sifu cannot possibly teach all that is possible or every way that a student can adapt with the methodology of the system.   So there is actually a lot that a student does need to figure out for himself, but if the Sifu has done his job well, then the student will have the tools to do so.


----------



## hunschuld

wckf92 said:


> I think he is referring to how a boxer/ring fighter will "circle away from the power hand" using small slices of a pie or degrees on a clock. They tend to go in a slow circle...


The man wins the prize!

 I also think moving in a circle must be deeply ingrained in humans since so many seem to fall to it with out thinking


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I wrote a post to explain the reason, I then realize that since the roundhouse kick is not emphasized in the WC system, my post may not apply to a WC thread.
> 
> Here is my reason why I want my opponent to switch sides in fighting.
> 
> When my opponent and I both have right side forward (uniform stance), my left back leg can only kick on his back (not a good target). My right leg is too close to my opponent and roundhouse kick is not powerful for that distance. I can use front, or side kick, but since my opponent stands side way, my target is limited.
> 
> In this pic, the person on the right kicks on his opponent's back which is not a good target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When my opponent switch sides and changes from right leg forward into left leg forward, his center line will scan across my body. If I can catch that good timing, my left leg roundhouse kick can hit on his chest (a full target).
> 
> In this picture, the person on the left switches side from right leg forward into left leg forward. The person on the right kicks out his left back roundhouse kick without any hesitation.
> 
> In sparring, you either wait for this opportunity to happen, or you try to create this opportunity for yourself.




I understand what you are saying. 

Since I teach constant movement lead leg changing happens.

I am not sure I agree about attacks to the back. A good kidney shot is a fight ender and will stun.  The ribs can also be broken easier than from the front depending on angle.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> I also think moving in a circle must be deeply ingrained in humans since so many seem to fall to it with out thinking


This is the major difference between Chinese wrestling and Judo. Chinese wrestlers like to drag their opponent in circle.

It's a good method to break apart your opponent's grip.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I understand your point.  I guess what I’m getting at is that no instructor can teach a student everything, meaning all that is possible within a system.  It’s not possible.  All he can do is teach how things work and how they work together and give a student a vision of what is possible and encourage the student to use it creatively.  So there is actually a lot for the student to figure out for himself, through no fault of the teacher.  Then what is “in” the system depends on the individual.


I agree. I'm drawing a distinction between the larger System (the entire art) and the systematic transfer to the student. You can't include everything (thus, there are techniques that fit within the System that may not be taught explcitly), but major pieces (like strategy) not being taught is the point I'm considering.


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> The man wins the prize!



What do I win? A free lesson next time I'm out in NM?


----------



## hunschuld

wckf92 said:


> What do I win? A free lesson next time I'm out in NM?


Don't think you need any lessons! would be happy to show you whatever you were interested in though.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the major difference between Chinese wrestling and Judo. Chinese wrestlers like to drag their opponent in circle.
> 
> It's a good method to break apart your opponent's grip.


----------



## hunschuld

Nice drills. remind me a bit of lop sau drill, Do you incorporate striking into this drill at some point?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Though in this case this was about strategy. My point was that it’s not in the system if the student has to figure it out. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit or belong, but that the instructor left it out. So in this usage, I’m referring to the system delivered to the student by that instructor, not the larger System (or art).



Here is kit dale's theory on training. And getting good really fast. 

It involves a lot of onus on the student figuring things out. Sort of.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Nice drills. remind me a bit of lop sau drill, Do you incorporate striking into this drill at some point?


No striking is used in that training. 

The training is to drag your opponent in circle. When your opponent shifts weight from 1 leg to another, you take advantage on it. Your opponent can resist against you, or yield into you. In both cases, you can borrow his force.


----------



## hunschuld

Do you also do this drill grabbing the Biceps elbow forearms as well?  With the proviso that training partners have to have trimmed fingernails.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Do you also do this drill grabbing the Biceps elbow forearms as well?  With the proviso that training partners have to have trimmed fingernails.


You will need a strong grip for this. Your opponent will get a black mark on his upper arm.

Old CMA saying said, "If your opponent has clothes, grab on his clothes, otherwise, grab on his skin."


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> However if you are ring fighting one thing is cutting the clock. We also use fast foot work. So always be in motion and keep angles constantly changing, keep changing distance until you are comfortable,receive what comes ie move in when range is entered do not move away.



Do you use western boxing footwork when "circling away from the opponent’s power hand" to apply “cutting the clock” thus maintaining boxing range? Or do you utilize wing chun stepping/footwork when “cutting the clock” to continually close the range with every step to get in closer?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “keep changing distance until you are comfortable,receive what comes”?
Do you mean constantly opening and closing distance by stepping away and towards the opponent until the opponent over extends or over commits by stepping into your range.

Is this a good example of what you are referring to in regards to “keep changing distance”?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Do you use western boxing footwork when "circling away from the opponent’s power hand" to apply “cutting the clock” thus maintaining boxing range? Or do you utilize wing chun stepping/footwork when “cutting the clock” to continually close the range with every step to get in closer?
> 
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by “keep changing distance until you are comfortable,receive what comes”?
> Do you mean constantly opening and closing distance by stepping away and towards the opponent until the opponent over extends or over commits by stepping into your range.
> 
> Is this a good example of what you are referring to in regards to “keep changing distance”?




 To be simple, for the most part. I always use wing chun footwork. Another rule. never chase. If contact is made and the opponent is backing out, 3 steps is the max you can chase
If he can't hit you and you can't hit him then there is no fight and I am ok with that. yes when he closes to that "B" range you attack. When he closes to do the tag tag tag stuff you should be receiving which mean moving in on him.You don't stay there and you don't move back. When range is made you move into his tag tag tag.


----------



## Jens

@ hunschuld
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “keep changing distance until you are comfortable,receive what comes”?
Do you mean constantly opening and closing distance by stepping away and towards the opponent until the opponent over extends or over commits by stepping into your range?


----------



## hunschuld

I think that is a good way to explain it


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Jens

@ hunschuld
What is “the delivery system” of wing chun?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> @ hunschuld
> What is “the delivery system” of wing chun?


I am not really sure what you mean by delivery system. My assumption is how is power produced and delivered.


----------



## geezer

hunschuld said:


> I am not really sure what you mean by delivery system. My assumption is how is power produced and delivered.



Oh. That makes sense, I guess. 

....I was thinking the US Postal Service, UPS or Fed Ex like when ordering from "Everything Wing Chun".


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I am not really sure what you mean by delivery system. My assumption is how is power produced and delivered.



yes! But more specifically regarding how power is delivered successfully to the target?

The “delivery system” of any martial art is the  method used to ensure your strikes will land on its intended target. For example “the delivery system” in western boxing is the ability to “set traps” to bait and set up your opponent to ensure your strike will land successfully with precision timing.


----------



## geezer

Jens said:


> yes! But more specifically regarding how power is delivered successfully to the target?
> 
> The “delivery system” of any martial art is the  method used to ensure your strikes will land on its intended target. For example “the delivery system” in western boxing is the ability to “set traps” to bait and set up your opponent to ensure your strike will land successfully with precision timing.



That's pretty broad... if "delivery system" includes footwork, angling, distance/position and timing ....and power generation and transmission.... Well it's _a lot _to talk about, that's for sure. Hunter might be able to boil that down to a single post. I sure couldn't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Does WC use the following strategy/tactic?

- Use your punch to create an opening, you then punch through that opening.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does WC use the following strategy/tactic?
> 
> - Use your punch to create an opening, you then punch through that opening.



You are trained in WC...what is your opinion on that?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> You are trained in WC...what is your opinion on that?


This is the main strategy/tactic of the striking art. It's pretty much "common sense" and used in all MA systems.

Since some people said in this thread that WC doesn't use any strategy/tactic, that's why I ask.

IMO, strategy/tactic such as this is very important.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the main strategy/tactic of the striking art. It's pretty much "common sense" and used in all MA systems.
> 
> Since some people said in this thread that WC doesn't use any strategy/tactic, that's why I ask.
> 
> IMO, strategy/tactic such as this is very important.



I see. 
Well, I would say that it is not the main strategy/tactic. I would say the main strategy/tactic is to punch/strike...THEN...if the punch/strike doesn't land on the intended target, or is otherwise interrupted along its way to the target, then the hands flow and cycle per the methods contained in the WC training to deal with the obstruction. 
Using your logic from above...you'd be intentionally punching an obstructed path that now forces you to "create an opening to punch through". Doesn't make sense if you ask me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Using your logic from above...you'd be intentionally punching an obstructed path that now forces you to "create an opening to punch through". Doesn't make sense if you ask me.


That's how the TCMA punch combo "black tiger eat the heart" is used. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it, you then punch to his chest.

In the following clip, his both punches are on the same level. IMO, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's how the TCMA punch combo "black tiger eat the heart" is used. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it, you then punch to his chest.
> 
> In the following clip, his both punches are on the same level. IMO, it doesn't make sense.



Ok, now you've lost me. You just changed what you said!
Anyway, as for the drill you are referencing...here is a hint you should know already: it's just a drill. It is not a literal expression of fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Ok, now you've lost me. You just changed what you said!


What change did I make?

1. Use your punch to create an opening, you then punch through that opening.

2. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it, you then punch to his chest.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What change did I make?
> 
> 1. Use your punch to create an opening, you then punch through that opening.
> 
> 2. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it, you then punch to his chest.



Exactly. Your 2 contradicts your 1.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Exactly. Your 2 contradicts your 1.


1. Use your punch to create an opening, you then punch through that opening.

2. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it (Use your punch to create an opening), you then punch to his chest (you then punch through that opening).


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. Use your punch to create an opening, you then punch through that opening.
> 
> 2. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it (Use your punch to create an opening), you then punch to his chest (you then punch through that opening).



I think its just the way you type dude...it is confusing to comprehend some times. 

You stated: "_Use your punch to create an opening,", _so: 
If you just punched your opponent in the head, you are not using your punch to create an opening...you are exploiting an opening. 
If you just punched your opponent in the head, his block is too late.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wckf92 said:


> I think its just the way you type dude...it is confusing to comprehend some times.
> 
> You stated: "_Use your punch to create an opening,", _so:
> If you just punched your opponent in the head, you are not using your punch to create an opening...you are exploiting an opening.
> If you just punched your opponent in the head, his block is too late.


I actually think John’s post (especially with the clarification) makes sense. I misread the first version, but his example cleared up the meaning for me.


----------



## wckf92

gpseymour said:


> I actually think John’s post (especially with the clarification) makes sense. I misread the first version, but his example cleared up the meaning for me.



Cool.
Yeah maybe my Vulcan logic filter needs adjusting haha.


----------



## Martial D

It makes sense to me. You punch to illicit a parry, and punch again though the opening that creates. That's called opening the inside gate, wing chun 101


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Here is another high, low punches combo.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> It makes sense to me. You punch to illicit a parry, and punch again though the opening that creates. That's called opening the inside gate, wing chun 101



Yeah I agree. Any response he makes will create an opening somewhere. Even if he parries and returns fire.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This strategy is also called, "Knock on the door. When your opponent opens it, you then enter."


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> yes! But more specifically regarding how power is delivered successfully to the target?
> 
> The “delivery system” of any martial art is the  method used to ensure your strikes will land on its intended target. For example “the delivery system” in western boxing is the ability to “set traps” to bait and set up your opponent to ensure your strike will land successfully with precision timing.




 As Geezer pointed out. This is really far to much for a forum. It could be a series of books.
Some basics. Everything starts from the ground up. Power comes from the ground. You have to maintain balance, you have to to able to receive incoming energy while maintaining balance and structure. You joints must be used properly and you must maintain shoulder connection to the body. The forearm must be seated in the elbow joint and the punch must rotate in a way to keep the connection. The first form trains the snake ging, the second form the crane ging the third form combines the two. One is vertical energy generation and power issue the other is horizontal . There are the variations depending on distance, contact are you strike or throwing. this depends on the energy received.
Everything above would just be a chapter heading in a book or a book all itself.

I don't believe in setting traps. Its a waste of time. A long time ago I was playing around with a top JKD instructor and he was very surprised at what happened when he used fakes to set me up. Your intent is always to cause damage . I will say I have sparred with professional boxers so I learned  via pain and broken nose check bone and concussions what works for me and what doesn't. Others may have different experiences


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's how the TCMA punch combo "black tiger eat the heart" is used. You punch your opponent's head, your opponent raises arm to block it, you then punch to his chest.
> 
> In the following clip, his both punches are on the same level. IMO, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## hunschuld

I agree John, We train it as follow the body. The opponents body shows you where to strike next or throw them etc This also ties in to Dim Mak  if you believe in that stuff..3 points to strike  so the first strike opens up the next point etc.

One thing about the video. While we train the same basic thing the first punch becomes a lop. It can clear the area for a second strike along the same line


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> One is vertical energy generation and power issue the other is horizontal



Yup! And, a lot of wing chun people fail to apply this to their WC IMO.



hunschuld said:


> Your intent is always to cause damage



This was a day 1 speech I still remember to this day! My instructor preached this simple fact. Any time your opponent sticks anything near you...cause it pain!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> I don't believe in setting traps. Its a waste of time.


You have to open your opponent's guard before you can punch him. When you open his guard, that's "set up".

- A groin kick, face punch combo is the most common set up used in striking art.
- A pull followed by a push is the most common set up used in wrestling art.








hunschuld said:


> Your intent is always to cause damage


Since your opponent is a moving object, your 1st punch may miss. But if you use your 1st punch tp bait your opponent to block it, you then grab his blocking arm, and throw your 2nd punch, your 2nd punch will have much better chance to hit your opponent.

Here is a double hooks combo. You use the 1st hook to set up a wrist grab, you then use the 2nd hook to hit.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> you must maintain shoulder connection to the body.


Please elaborate on the biomechanics/alignment of how this is done?


----------



## hunschuld

I don't look at things the way you do. Sure the opponent moves. That's reality . I may end up with a wrist grab I don't set up for one. . The example is only very basic to train an idea  and not a representation of reality. People don't just leave their arm outstretched and not moving so you can just grab it.. You said the opponent is a moving object so are their limbs. The back hand does not stay cocked so far back and frozen in place. The person stepping in has many openings that could easily be attacked

I feel that using examples like this to indicate actual  fighting usage is fantasy fu and only for training beginners in some fighting ideas but should not be used to train actual fighting effectiveness

The top example is not  setting a trap or faking. He is doing a standard inside pak/lop to open and cross the bridge. He is not trying to use a fake or movement to illicit a response that he can then attack through. So while a great example of what it is showing it has no barring on what I am talking about


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Please elaborate on the biomechanics/alignment of how this is done?


The upper arm must rotate into the shoulder. Most people allow the upper arm to pull out of the shoulder


----------



## hunschuld

wckf92 said:


> Yup! And, a lot of wing chun people fail to apply this to their WC IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> This was a day 1 speech I still remember to this day! My instructor preached this simple fact. Any time your opponent sticks anything near you...cause it pain!


 
Yeah, I think the problems comes partly because while many teach WC and martial arts in general very few have actually fought trained fighters from different arts . People that understand real fighting have different outlooks and understandings


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> People don't just leave their arm outstretched and not moving so you can just grab it.


When you throw a punch, if your your arm

- make contact on your opponent's arm, you grab it.
- doesn't make contact on your opponent's arm, depending on his arm moving path, your change your arm moving path, and meet his arm half way.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you throw a punch, if your your arm
> 
> - make contact on your opponent's arm, you grab it.
> - doesn't make contact on your opponent's arm, depending on his arm moving path, your change your arm moving path, and meet his arm half way.



Yes but that is not what is happening in the example you put up. Person A stands with a frozen outstretched lead arm and person B just reaches out and grabs it.  Very different than throwing a punch making contact with a lead arm and loping it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Yes but that is not what is happening in the example you put up. Person A stands with a frozen outstretched lead arm and person B just reaches out and grabs it.  Very different than throwing a punch making contact with a lead arm and loping it.


One clip can only show one example.

Here is a different example that

- You use a hook punch and try to grab your opponent's wrist, your opponent rotates his arm to avoid contact, and hook punch back at you.
- You change your hook into a back fist, arm wrap.

When you throw a hook punch as a set up, you have to expect different responds (either make contact, or doesn't make contact).


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> The upper arm must rotate into the shoulder. Most people allow the upper arm to pull out of the shoulder



Are you referring to the glenohumeral joint? As in when tucking in the elbows to create Mai jang?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Are you referring to the glenohumeral joint? As in when tucking in the elbows to create Mai jang?


 Good question. I have no clue about the proper name s for the different joints or parts of the body in general.

The body is designed to move in circular or spherical fashion as opposed to a piston like fashion if that makes sense. In the example KFW posted above the way the person in black throws the circular punch . The arm is not staying connected to the shoulder joint its all arm no body.. .


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Yes but that is not what is happening in the example you put up. Person A stands with a frozen outstretched lead arm and person B just reaches out and grabs it.  Very different than throwing a punch making contact with a lead arm and loping it.


This is why all punches should be trained in 3 dimensional.

When you throw a hook punch, if your arm can't contact on your opponent's arm, you can change your hook punch into a back fist. If you still can't make any arm contact, your other hand can punch as:

- hook,
- cross,
- uppercut,
- overhand.

In other words, even if your 1st punch, and 2nd punch fail, it will still create a chance for your 3rd punch.

So it's good idea to train the following combos (no matter which MA system that you may come from):

1. right hook, right back fist, right hook.
2. right hook, right back fist, left hook.
3. right hook, right back fist, left cross.
4. right hook, right back fist, left uppercut.
5. right hook, right back fist, left overhand.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Good question. I have no clue about the proper name s for the different joints or parts of the body in general.
> 
> The body is designed to move in circular or spherical fashion as opposed to a piston like fashion if that makes sense. In the example KFW posted above the way the person in black throws the circular punch . The arm is not staying connected to the shoulder joint its all arm no body.. .



Is there a clip or photo you can post of someone who have their arm connected to the shoulder?


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> The upper arm must rotate into the shoulder. Most people allow the upper arm to pull out of the shoulder



Are you referring to internal rotation of the upper arm within the shoulder socket?


----------



## hunschuld

yes


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> The upper arm must rotate into the shoulder. Most people allow the upper arm to pull out of the shoulder



Was this something you learnt specifically in Lo Kwai wck? or was it from your Yip Man wck teachers?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Was this something you learnt specifically in Lo Kwai wck? or was it from your Yip Man wck teachers?



Good question .
In Lo Kwai's WC skeleton and tendon usage is specifically focused on. Also meridians etc to a lesser degree. The WC is internal meaning a focus on soft also internal means use of skeleton and tendons as opposed to raw strength of muscles. However these ideas also appear to different degrees  in different versions of Yip Man WC.

The internal usage is difficult to teach to large groups of public students since not everyone will get it and understand it the same way or have the athletic ability to do it with out a great deal of personal attention.. Sometimes it is so difficult getting someone to do it that teachers just go to a short cut that gets enough of the effect that a person can fight well.

The stance is a great example. A cheat can be a stance wider than the shoulders . It helps in dealing with incoming force but you can do even better using a normal stance if you are using your skeleton properly.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> The upper arm must rotate into the shoulder. Most people allow the upper arm to pull out of the shoulder



here is something I found in Kenneth Chung’s wing chun which is very similar to what you described above 

“The fixed, in-turned elbows (Mai Zhang), extended slight away and in front of the body (the long bridge), serve as a fulcrum behind which the up-right but rooted body can push (when moving forward). They, also, provide an axis along which the arms can rotate up and down in a virtual (forward intended) screwing motion (Cantonese: Bon Sau). Any frontal pushing action against or weight on the arms will be absorbed by the fixed in-turned elbow, channeled into the body, into the legs, and down to the ground. Any push of the legs against the ground in a forward movement (with the body in a rooted up-right position) will transmit “force” through the same path, expressed in a punch or any hand gesture. This dynamic, two-way energy transmission (generation and absorption) is halted when the elbows are turn out or not turned in (Cantonese: Song Zhang). The concept of Zhang Dai Lik or “under elbow strength” describes, at once, the weight down the elbow as well as its central function in the transmitting of forward energy generated by body movement and the ab- sorbing of incoming force down the arm. (The distance from the tip of the fingers/fist to the body remains constant, creating a fixed and protected zone around the body, an area an opponent needs to penetrate in a fight). Incidentally, the turned-in elbows and the long bridge position together serve as a protective bar- rier between an incoming punch to the mid-body section.”

what’s your opinion?


----------



## Martial D

Jens said:


> what’s your opinion?



Keep your hands up if you wanna stay pretty.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One clip can only show one example.
> 
> Here is a different example that
> 
> - You use a hook punch and try to grab your opponent's wrist, your opponent rotates his arm to avoid contact, and hook punch back at you.
> - You change your hook into a back fist, arm wrap.
> 
> When you throw a hook punch as a set up, you have to expect different responds (either make contact, or doesn't make contact).


In my opinion, that hook would be better used to strike the back of his elbow or his wrist.  That potentially takes his arm out of the fight, if you land it well, and takes a lot of the fight out of him.  At that point, either the fight is over, or you are able to make your escape, or you follow with another strike to an exposed target such as the face or body since his arm is dropped, and end it in that way.

But to purposely swing it high In order to bait him to move in a way to make him vulnerable to another entry, is a lost opportunity in my opinion.  He may not take the bait, you may not get to use the entry you wanted, and you just wasted effort. I think it overcomplicates the encounter.  I actually feel that a lot of people overcomplicate fighting.  It doesn’t need to be complicated.  People over-think it all and devise complex strategies that are probably irrelevant in most cases.  Perhaps in a competition scenario where you know your opponent is highly trained, and the competitors are watching video and studying each other in preparation for the fight, then some of that complexity makes sense.  But on the street, keep it simple and direct.

Use what he gives you.  Hurt his arm.  When the arm is then out of the way, hurt his head or his body.  Hurt whatever he gives you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I think it overcomplicates the encounter.


- You throw a right hook punch. Your opponent rotates his left arm to avoid contact, and left hook punch back at you.
- You change your right hook punch into a right back fist, arm wrap.

Your right hook, right back fist can be used to set up "arm wrap".

Your left hand will have the following options at this moment.

1. Left cross.
2. Left uppercut.
3. Left overhand.
4. Left hook.

It depends on where and how your opponent's right arm is doing at that moment. As long as you can knock your opponent down, any option will be a good option.

This is why the following 4 combos are part of my training:

- right hook, right back fist, left cross
- right hook, right back fist, left uppercut
- right hook, right back fist, left overhand
- right hook, right back fist, left hook

IMO, the striking art is more interested to train this way - use 1, 2 to set up 3.


----------



## wckf92

Flying Crane said:


> Use what he gives you. Hurt his arm.



  two thumbs up! 

In John's example above...he has done 4 or 5 movements and hasn't yet dealt any definitive blow. IMO, this is not the way of Wing Chun.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - You throw a right hook punch. Your opponent rotates his left arm to avoid contact, and left hook punch back at you.
> - You change your right hook punch into a right back fist, arm wrap.
> 
> Your right hook, right back fist can be used to set up "arm wrap".
> 
> Your left hand will have the following options at this moment.
> 
> 1. Left cross.
> 2. Left uppercut.
> 3. Left overhand.
> 4. Left hook.
> 
> It depends on where and how your opponent's right arm is doing at that moment. As long as you can knock your opponent down, any option will be a good option.
> 
> This is why the following 4 combos are part of my training:
> 
> - right hook, right back fist, left cross
> - right hook, right back fist, left uppercut
> - right hook, right back fist, left overhand
> - right hook, right back fist, left hook
> 
> IMO, the striking art is more interested to train this way - use 1, 2 to set up 3.


Lots of movement to try and set something up.  Just hit what is there.  Other opportunities will follow.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Lots of movement to try and set something up.  Just hit what is there.  Other opportunities will follow.


It's very difficult to integrate striking art and throwing art if you don't have a plan. Most of the throw will require a leading arm wrapping (such as a hip throw).


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's very difficult to integrate striking art and throwing art if you don't have a plan. Most of the throw will require a leading arm wrapping (such as a hip throw).


Maybe you don’t need throwing art?  Maybe how you are trying to Mix them isn’t optimal.  Sounds to me like you want to get into a throw. Maybe change your mental processing on this and just look for what works, whether a throw or a strike, without trying for specifically one or the other.  Do whatever presents, even if it’s not what you hoped for.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Do whatever presents, even if it’s not what you hoped for.


It's better to make something to happen than to wait for something to happen.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's better to make something to happen than to wait for something to happen.



I don't think @Flying Crane is saying that at all...I think what he is saying is pick one style/method. This is a wing chun forum and IMO what you have demo'd isn't WC. If throwing arts is where your skill is...then great, use that vs trying to merge the two. 

I agree with you that its best to make something happen....but in a "wing chun way", not a throwing art way.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's better to make something to happen than to wait for something to happen.


Something has already happened: he gave you his arm. Destroy it.  THEN destroy his head or body, when he can’t defend with his arm.

you are ignoring the opportunity that he gave you, and are trying to set up something else that requires extra positioning and baiting.  IMO, that is a less-optimal way to go. 

grappling has an advantage in sparring: you can dial the intensity up or down just to the point where it works, without injury.  Grappling seeks to control the opponent, and that can be done without serious injury to the opponent, if you are skilled.  Striking has a disadvantage in sparring: if you dial back the intensity, your opponent can shrug it off and ignore it.  There isn’t as much middle ground.  For striking to really work, you need to be willing to hit with commitment and damage your target.  That isn’t so good for sparring.

If you have been sparring a lot with grappling, then perhaps there is hesitancy to not hit so much, so your partners are not injured.  That is understandable: you should not injure your partners.  But you need to understand the difference in what is needed to make it work in sparring,vs. fighting/self-defense.  In fighting, if you strike, you MUST be willing to strike to destroy.  Otherwise you will be ineffectual and you will not defend yourself.  If you mostly of exclusively grapple in your sparring, you may not be used to seeing the obvious targets for striking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's better to make something to happen than to wait for something to happen.


I don’t think anyone gets to do either 100%.


----------



## drop bear

So we are punching peoples arms now?


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> So we are punching peoples arms now?



Didn't you do that in about sixth grade? You know, trading punches to the shoulder???


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Didn't you do that in about sixth grade? You know, trading punches to the shoulder???



Yeah I did.  Pity all these years I never realised the fight ending potential of that move.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> This is a wing chun forum and IMO what you have demo'd isn't WC.





geezer said:


> To be a _complete martial art,_ however, you also need to have a _long range game_ and a good _grappling game_.


I assume OP also wanted to discuss

- complete MA,
- long range game, and
- grappling game,

in this thread.

When I talk about:

- right hook, right back fist, left cross
- right hook, right back fist, left uppercut
- right hook, right back fist, left overhand
- right hook, right back fist, left hook

I'm only talking about a pure striking game. Did someone say that hook punch exist in the WC system? How can you train hook punch without training the back fist?


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Did someone say that hook punch exist in the WC system? How can you train hook punch without training the back fist?



you are saying this as if it is some kind of a law.  It isn’t.  It is an option.  Nothing more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> you are saying this as if it is some kind of a law.  It isn’t.  It is an option.  Nothing more.


When you throw a left hook punch, your opponent rotates his right arm to avoid contact, and throw a right hook punch back at your head, what will you do?

If you train "left hook, left back fist" combo, you can avoid this from happening.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you throw a left hook punch, your opponent rotates his right arm to avoid contact, and throw a right hook punch back at your head, what will you do?


Any of a number of things are possible.  Backfist is not mandatory. 

From reading your posts over several years, I believe you see things as rules and absolutes. I don’t understand that.  I see them as possibilities among many, with guiding principles.  

I think the way you see it can be very limiting.  The way I see it can be very liberating.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Any of a number of things are possible.  Backfist is not mandatory.
> 
> From reading your posts over several years, I believe you see things as rules and absolutes. I don’t understand that.  I see them as possibilities among many, with guiding principles.
> 
> I think the way you see it can be very limiting.  The way I see it can be very liberating.


When your opponent dodges under your hook, you change your hook into a back fist and hit on top of his head is a nature 1,2 combo.

In MA, there are something that just com in as nature pair.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent dodges under your hook, you change your hook into a back fist and hit on top of his head is a nature 1,2 combo.
> 
> In MA, there are something that just com in as nature pair.


Yes it CAN be.  It is one option among many.  If you like it, use it.  I am not disputing that.  But you tend to express things as absolutes.  They are not absolutes.  They are options and possibilities.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> But you tend to express things as absolutes.  They are not absolutes.  They are options and possibilities.


Did I ever use the word "absolute"?

Do you have to throw a back fist after you have thrown a hook? Of course you don't have to. You can throw hook, uppercut combo as well if your hook can obtain a head lock.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Did I ever use the word "absolute"?
> 
> Do you have to throw a back fist after you have thrown a hook? Of course you don't have to. You can throw hook, uppercut combo as well if your hook can obtain a head lock.


Of course you did not use the word absolute.  But you did say, “how can you train hook punch without training the back fist?”  That implies you feel it is mandatory, that the two must go together. 

maybe you do not intend to express in absolutes, so my apology if I am interpreting what you say incorrectly.  But I often read an expressed absolute in what you write.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume OP also wanted to discuss... Did someone say that hook punch exist in the WC system? How can you train hook punch without training the back fist?



In my WC, coming out of the "WT" lineage, there is both a _both hook and a backfist _...even if my old sifu didn't lay it out that way. 

Here's where I get the hook and backfist from in the forms within the traditional system:

1. The Chum Kiu pivoting "Hacking Elbows" (Lan Sau) can be interpreted as both hook and backfist as well as elbow strikes (see 2:26-2:30 and again at 2:50-2:54 in the clip below): 

a. _Hook: _If you can hit them with a lan sau (when turning towards your opponent) you can use the same structure and energy while closing your fist and hit them with a hook punch. And, you can open your elbow angle beyond 90° as needed to get more range.

b. _Backfist: _Usually WC uses a _Fak-Sau _instead of a backfist, especially when targeting the neck or throat, but in most applications, you can close the open-handed fak-sau into a fist, and voila, you have a very functional _backfist_ ...perhaps more functional (and safer) when wearing gloves and sparring. In the pivoting _Lan-Sau_ sequence in Chum-Kiu, the back fist would be an extension of _the pivot away from your opponent_. If your elbow misses, your unwinding fak-sau _or fist_ will do the job.

2. Chum Kiu and Biu Tze pivoting Fak-Sau movements: The following pivoting fak sau sequences in Chum Kiu and Biu Tze are additional examples of movements that can be applied as backfists (see 3:08-3:10 in Chum Kiu section of the clip below, and again at 5:45-5:55 in the Biu Tze section in the same clip):

3. Biu Tze Double arm-grapple, hook punch, dropping-elbow, and throat-strike sequence: Note the hook punch when pivoting back to center after the arm grapple. This is followed by a dropping elbow (chik-lok jarn) and an open palm throat strike. The elbow dropping movement also can be translated as a _downward vertical backfist, _expressing t_he same relationship between a backward elbow strike and backfist _as noted before (see 5:55 to 6:05 in the clip below).

Old footage of Chum Kiu and Biu Tze in the "WT" lineage:


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent dodges under your hook, you change your hook into a back fist and hit on top of his head is a nature 1,2 combo.
> 
> In MA, there are something that just com in as nature pair.


Missing with a hand and reversing it to strike in the opposite direction doesn't seem like a fast or powerful counter, unless I'm entirely misunderstanding what you're suggesting.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> Missing with a hand and reversing it to strike in the opposite direction doesn't seem like a fast or powerful counter, unless I'm entirely misunderstanding what you're suggesting.



It's not. But then again, the backfist is generally not a particularly powerful strike. But it could be argued that it's better than none, and even a lighter impact can be used to setup a more powerful attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> It's not. But then again, the backfist is generally not a particularly powerful strike. But it could be argued that it's better than none, and even a lighter impact can be used to setup a more powerful attack.


That I could see. I was reading John's posts as putting it forth as a best-practice response when a hook doesn't connect. For me, if a hook doesn't connect, I'm probably both faster and more powerful following up with the other hand.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> That I could see. I was reading John's posts as putting it forth as a best-practice response when a hook doesn't connect. For me, if a hook doesn't connect, I'm probably both faster and more powerful following up with the other hand.



Would your other hand be faster and more powerful because you practice it more? Or do you practice it more because it's faster and more powerful?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> That I could see. I was reading John's posts as putting it forth as a best-practice response when a hook doesn't connect. For me, if a hook doesn't connect, I'm probably both faster and more powerful following up with the other hand.


When your opponent dodges under your right hook, his head is moving to your right. Your right arm is jamming your own left arm, your left hand may not be able to reach to his head.

You can use

- right elbow strike,
- right reverse hook,
- right reverse head lock,
- right back fist,

as your next move.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Missing with a hand and reversing it to strike in the opposite direction doesn't seem like a fast or powerful counter, unless I'm entirely misunderstanding what you're suggesting.


Interestingly, I found myself using such a combo in my heavy bag session today.  I don’t see the hook as a “miss”, but rather as a strike to the inside of his elbow as he tries to strike me.  From there, I roll it into the backfist.  I am able to get a surprisingly good deal of power in it, at least in my opinion.

I think that by landing the first hook, that changes the mechanics a bit from if it missed. Makes it easier to hit harder with the backfist.  But it needs to be done with body connection.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Would your other hand be faster and more powerful because you practice it more? Or do you practice it more because it's faster and more powerful?


It would be faster and more powerful because it’s the other hand. Wouldn’t matter which the first hand was, a follow up with the other would be faster and more powerful than stopping and reversing the first.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> It would be faster and more powerful because it’s the other hand. Wouldn’t matter which the first hand was, a follow up with the other would be faster and more powerful than stopping and reversing the first.



You don't have to stop and reverse (although you can). You can loop it. Which may well be faster and stronger.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Interestingly, I found myself using such a combo in my heavy bag session today.  I don’t see the hook as a “miss”, but rather as a strike to the inside of his elbow as he tries to strike me.  From there, I roll it into the backfist.  I am able to get a surprisingly good deal of power in it, at least in my opinion.
> 
> I think that by landing the first hook, that changes the mechanics a bit from if it missed. Makes it easier to hit harder with the backfist.  But it needs to be done with body connection.


In a case like that - where the strike met its target- that is probably as effective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> You don't have to stop and reverse (although you can). You can loop it. Which may well be faster and stronger.


I’m not picturing that. Maybe it’s just a technique I don’t own. The change of direction for the arm would be slower for me than using the gathered body tension with the other arm.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> In a case like that - where the strike met its target- that is probably as effective.


As effective as it can be, you mean?  When the hook lands on the first strike, It can rebound or bounce off, can change directions more quickly than if you need to stop it in mid air and change directions.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I’m not picturing that. Maybe it’s just a technique I don’t own. The change of direction for the arm would be slower for me than using the gathered body tension with the other arm.


Push with the feet and legs to rotate the torso.  Push one direction, then push the other.  Body connection for both strikes.  Good power that way, and probably a quicker direction change.  If youve practiced it enough.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I’m not picturing that. Maybe it’s just a technique I don’t own. The change of direction for the arm would be slower for me than using the gathered body tension with the other arm.



Annnnd we're back to the original question. Is it that way because you don't practice it, or do you not practice it because that's how it is? 
I think it's probably some of both. Humans being humans, things don't work exactly the same from one body to another. We train, and find certain movements that feel more natural to us. Odds are, especially early on, that we will practice those more. Later, we may make a conscious effort to practice the less natural movements, but will they ever feel as natural?
And that's ignoring the impact of time. There are certainly things which felt much more natural at 20 than 60.


----------



## geezer

gpseymour said:


> I’m not picturing that. Maybe it’s just a technique I don’t own. The change of direction for the arm would be slower for me than using the gathered body tension with the other arm.



Dirty Dog and Crane can picture it ...and so can I. Think _Escrima ..._or any art where you hold a weapon in one hand and can use tight figure-eight loop powered by body torque. You swing-in with a right hook and miss...so you loop in a tight figure-eight and bring your back/downward fist, forearm or elbow to bear on your target.  

Heck pick up a bottle or a rock and give it a try!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> Dirty Dog and Crane can picture it ...and so can I. Think _Escrima ..._or any art where you hold a weapon in one hand and can use tight figure-eight loop powered by body torque. You swing-in with a right hook and miss...so you loop in a tight figure-eight and bring your back/downward fist, forearm or elbow to bear on your target.
> 
> Heck pick up a bottle or a rock and give it a try!


With a weapon (especially a stick), I can picture it. The figure 8 doesn't make sense to me with an arm. It feels like a weak return, especially if I stay at a backhand position - a bit better if I come back at a chop. Like I said, maybe just a technique I don't own. (My FMA experience never touched empty hand, so it doesn't provide a reference point on this.)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> figure-eight loop powered by body torque.


The dagger S cut is also another good example. You cut your opponent's belly, your opponent dodges it, you then cut his throat.


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> Think _Escrima ..._or any art where you hold a weapon in one hand and can use tight figure-eight loop powered by body torque. You swing-in with a right hook and miss...so you loop in a tight figure-eight and bring your back/downward fist, forearm or elbow to bear on your target.



Yup. It is in the forms.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> here is something I found in Kenneth Chung’s wing chun which is very similar to what you described above
> 
> “The fixed, in-turned elbows (Mai Zhang), extended slight away and in front of the body (the long bridge), serve as a fulcrum behind which the up-right but rooted body can push (when moving forward). They, also, provide an axis along which the arms can rotate up and down in a virtual (forward intended) screwing motion (Cantonese: Bon Sau). Any frontal pushing action against or weight on the arms will be absorbed by the fixed in-turned elbow, channeled into the body, into the legs, and down to the ground. Any push of the legs against the ground in a forward movement (with the body in a rooted up-right position) will transmit “force” through the same path, expressed in a punch or any hand gesture. This dynamic, two-way energy transmission (generation and absorption) is halted when the elbows are turn out or not turned in (Cantonese: Song Zhang). The concept of Zhang Dai Lik or “under elbow strength” describes, at once, the weight down the elbow as well as its central function in the transmitting of forward energy generated by body movement and the ab- sorbing of incoming force down the arm. (The distance from the tip of the fingers/fist to the body remains constant, creating a fixed and protected zone around the body, an area an opponent needs to penetrate in a fight). Incidentally, the turned-in elbows and the long bridge position together serve as a protective bar- rier between an incoming punch to the mid-body section.”
> 
> what’s your opinion?


I have never met KC or any of his advanced students so don't know what he teaches but reads like part of the same thing.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you throw a left hook punch, your opponent rotates his right arm to avoid contact, and throw a right hook punch back at your head, what will you do?
> 
> If you train "left hook, left back fist" combo, you can avoid this from happening.


I think the gentleman eating canvas is caught doing several things wrong. Weak hook attempt is the second. Not sure I would call it a hook Dropping his hands  the third. . Not sure the hook to backfist would be of any help in this case but I am nitpicking. You do have to bring your hand back to center after it has crossed the center in some fashion. Always cover your open areas


----------



## hunschuld

Dirty Dog said:


> Annnnd we're back to the original question. Is it that way because you don't practice it, or do you not practice it because that's how it is?
> I think it's probably some of both. Humans being humans, things don't work exactly the same from one body to another. We train, and find certain movements that feel more natural to us. Odds are, especially early on, that we will practice those more. Later, we may make a conscious effort to practice the less natural movements, but will they ever feel as natural?
> And that's ignoring the impact of time. There are certainly things which felt much more natural at 20 than 60.



 This is the heart of so many issues. How do you train. I spent years training what to do if I miss. It is a focus of what I always taught students. Hooks can leave you in a bad position if you miss so you must have a true no thought  reflex to deal with that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> You do have to bring your hand back to center after it has crossed the center in some fashion. Always cover your open areas


When your opponent's arm is rotated (avoid contact), you try to meet his arm half way. Since you make your opponent's arm to rotate (by your hook punch, downward parry, or wrist grab), you are 1 step ahead of hm.

- The hook punch (or downward parry) is to protect your center from outside in.
- The back fist (or uppercut) is to protect your center from inside out.

If you use hook punch, uppercut combo instead, since the uppercut is similar to the WC Tan Shou, by using Tan Shou to protect the center from inside out is a logic move.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> With a weapon (especially a stick), I can picture it. The figure 8 doesn't make sense to me with an arm. It feels like a weak return, especially if I stay at a backhand position - a bit better if I come back at a chop. Like I said, maybe just a technique I don't own. (My FMA experience never touched empty hand, so it doesn't provide a reference point on this.)



I actually do that punch as a gag. It is not to bad as a hammer fist.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> With a weapon (especially a stick), I can picture it. The figure 8 doesn't make sense to me with an arm. It feels like a weak return, especially if I stay at a backhand position - a bit better if I come back at a chop. Like I said, maybe just a technique I don't own. (My FMA experience never touched empty hand, so it doesn't provide a reference point on this.)


What do you mean "My FMA experience never touched empty hand"?

- A hook punch can be a downward parry (or wrist grab).
- A back fist (or uppercut) can be an arm wrap.

Both don't require that much power. After your can wrap your opponent's leading arm, your other hand can punch on your opponent's face as hard as you can with power (since he is not going anywhere).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

There are many advantages if you can control your opponent's leading arm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I actually do that punch as a gag. It is not to bad as a hammer fist.


I assume the hammer fist would be about the same shoulder/arm angle as the chop, which feels a lot better to me in this context than a back fist position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you mean "My FMA experience never touched empty hand"?


The FMA training I have was entirely with weapons.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

To use WC Tan Shou to block a hook punch is commonly used in the WC system.







To change from Tan Shou to arm wrap is natural follow up.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> The upper arm must rotate into the shoulder. Most people allow the upper arm to pull out of the shoulder



What’s the chest mechanics involved with this?


----------



## geezer

gpseymour said:


> The FMA training I have was entirely with *weapons.*



Me too. But hands is weapons!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> Me too. But hands is weapons!


Agreed. Just a different mechanic in some ways with the additional hinging point (using the wrist with a stick, for instance).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> But hands is weapons!


Agree! For each and every open hand technique, you can always find an equivalent weapon technique (or the other way around).

Open hand technique - comb hair and palm strike.






Sword technique - deflect and chop.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Here is another "hook, back fist" combo clip.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I assume the hammer fist would be about the same shoulder/arm angle as the chop, which feels a lot better to me in this context than a back fist position.



Yeah.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I assume the hammer fist would be about the same shoulder/arm angle as the chop, which feels a lot better to me in this context than a back fist position.



Back fist can be either a vertical or horizontal movement. Hammer fist is almost exclusively a vertical movement.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Back fist can be either a vertical or horizontal movement. Hammer fist is almost exclusively a vertical movement.



My coach is quite partial to a hammer fist uppercut.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> My coach is quite partial to a hammer fist uppercut.



Now that sounds really awkward. Can you describe it? Is he impacting with the pinky side of the fist?


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Now that sounds really awkward. Can you describe it? Is he impacting with the pinky side of the fist?



Pinky side. It is sort of like the Anderson Silva uppercut elbow but it won't kill you in sparring.

It legitimately sucks to get hit with.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Pinky side. It is sort of like the Anderson Silva uppercut elbow but it won't kill you in sparring.
> 
> It legitimately sucks to get hit with.



Interesting. I'd love to see this in execution.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dirty Dog said:


> Back fist can be either a vertical or horizontal movement. Hammer fist is almost exclusively a vertical movement.


I would disagree with that.  Hammer fist can certainly be horizontal of diagonal as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My coach is quite partial to a hammer fist uppercut.


Ooh. That sounds interesting. Can you link me to an example of what you’re describing?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I would disagree with that.  Hammer fist can certainly be horizontal of diagonal as well.


Nearly all the training I have with hammer fist strikes is diagonal or horizontal - both forehand and backhand. That may be linked to the use of a chop as a foundational strike in NGA, and the way we power it.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> Nearly all the training I have with hammer fist strikes is diagonal or horizontal - both forehand and backhand. That may be linked to the use of a chop as a foundational strike in NGA, and the way we power it.


Yes, I think a knife-hand and a hammer fist can be seen as variants of the same strike.

I’ve even trained it traveling in an upward direction, to the rear.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Interesting. I'd love to see this in execution.



I will try to get some video Saturday.


----------



## geezer

Dirty Dog said:


> Back fist can be either a vertical or horizontal movement. Hammer fist is almost exclusively a vertical movement.



You can hammer down at an angle with a lot of power generated by torque and weight drop. That would be a downward #1 and #2 strike in the system I train. Same as with a stick, but with no stick!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Do WC guys use arm wrap after Tan Shou?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do WC guys use arm wrap after Tan Shou?



I would have to say a big NO to that. I'm not saying it can't or wouldn't happen because everything is circumstantial; but just that a WC person would most likely lean towards striking. Just my .02


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> I would have to say a big NO to that. I'm not saying it can't or wouldn't happen because everything is circumstantial; but just that a WC person would most likely lean towards striking. Just my .02


If you pull your opponent into your punch, A + B > A.

We are talking about striking here. Is grab-punch commonly used in the WC system? If you use

- arm wrap, you can punch when you are in the front door.






- wrist grab, you can punch when you are in the side door.


----------



## Callen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are talking about striking here. Is grab-punch commonly used in the WC system? If you use
> 
> 
> - arm wrap, you can punch when you are in the front door.



Are you suggesting that the ”arm wrap” should be included in the Wing Chun system? If so, how is it beneficial to the entire system in terms of Wing Chun concepts and principles?

Why not utilize methods that are already found, reinforced and developed within the system?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> Are you suggesting that the ”arm wrap” should be included in the Wing Chun system? If so, how is it beneficial to the entire system in terms of Wing Chun concepts and principles?
> 
> Why not utilize methods that are already found, reinforced and developed within the system?


Arm wrap and wrist grab can be used to disable your opponent's arm mobility. When you pull your opponent into your punch, A + B > A.

- Arm wrap can separate your opponent's arms away from his head (this will expose his center).
- Wrist grab can guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm (this will disable his back arm).

When you apply wrist grab, your opponent's elbow joint is still free. When you apply arm wrap, you have truly control his whole arm.

A: Why do you want to bring roundhouse kick into your system?
B: Because it's useful.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Arm wrap and wrist grab can be used to disable your opponent's arm mobility.



So can punching him in the face, really really hard.


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> Are you suggesting that the ”arm wrap” should be included in the Wing Chun system? ...Why not utilize methods that are already found, reinforced and developed within the system?



One of my_ DTE Escrima_ coaches tried to get me to use an arm wrap like that. He said it was just like a strong, forward pressing tan sau. And when he did it it was effective. 

But, it never worked well for me, especially in a Wing Chun context. I found that it worked against the "feel" or "energy" of the art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> So can punching him in the face, really really hard.


When you punch, if your opponent 

- moves back, A - B < A.
- stands still, A = A.
- moves forward (by your puling), A + B > A.


----------



## wckf92

@Kung Fu Wang  I should clarify that I'm talking about your "arm wrap" scenario. 

I agree with you about the wrist grab. But it is not a prolonged event. I'm not grabbing to maintain; only to violently pull...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> @Kung Fu Wang  I should clarify that I'm talking about your "arm wrap" scenario.
> 
> I agree with you about the wrist grab. But it is not a prolonged event. I'm not grabbing to maintain; only to violently pull...


I assume you prefer to talk about the striking art. After you have obtained an arm wrap. whether you want to continue with your striking art, or switch into your grappling art, the option will be yours.

When your left arm wrap on your opponent's right arm, Whether you want to knock your opponent down by your 1st right punch, or 2nd right punch, it will all up to you. Whether you just want to violently pull (and release), it will still up to you.

Many years ago, a friend of mine said, "If I just keep moving back, none of your technique will work on me." His comment had bothered me for a long time. I then realized that if my body can connect on my opponent's body, his backward movement will pull my body into him. Since that day, I seriously looked for that "connection".

I don't mind my opponent to move back. As long as his body and my body are connected, my technique will still work. If my left arm can wrap on his right arm, I can attack him with my right :

- palm strike.
- elbow strike.
- cross.
- hook
- uppercut.
- overhand.
- hammer fist.
- ...

The fight can end right there.






I want to create that head on collusion opportunity A + B > A.


----------



## Callen

geezer said:


> One of my_ DTE Escrima_ coaches tried to get me to use an arm wrap like that. He said it was just like a strong, forward pressing tan sau. And when he did it it was effective.
> 
> But, it never worked well for me, especially in a Wing Chun context. I found that it worked against the "feel" or "energy" of the art.


Yeah, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. It's a tricky topic for sure. It requires serious thought, as opposed to just throwing an arm wrap into the mix because it would be cool to "use".

Adding things to the system in general is very situationally dependent and typically superfluous. To me though, the question is about how the addition benefits, compliments and reinforces the concepts of the system. Does it violate core principles, how is it developed within the context of the system, is it a supporting concept (of the system as a whole) or a single "technique"? Etc...


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do WC guys use arm wrap after Tan Shou?



By the way. You are giving up the underhook to do that.


----------



## Flying Crane

Callen said:


> Yeah, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. It's a tricky topic for sure. It requires serious thought, as opposed to just throwing an arm wrap into the mix because it would be cool to "use".
> 
> Adding things to the system in general is very situationally dependent and typically superfluous. To me though, the question is about how the addition benefits, compliments and reinforces the concepts of the system. Does it violate core principles, how is it developed within the context of the system, is it a supporting concept (of the system as a whole) or a single "technique"? Etc...


It is common for people to add things into a martial system.  People seem to feel that they need to have “everything,” which is simply not possible.  They look at what others are doing and think, “hey that works well for them, we should do it too.”  What often gets overlooked or neglected is whether the added component might be incompatible with the structural foundation of the system.  People often fail to consider what should NOT be added.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> By the way. You are giving up the underhook to do that.


Under hook and over hook can be used to counter each other.

When you use

- over hook, I can use under hook to counter you.
- under hook, I can use over hook to counter you.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> It is common for people to add things into a martial system.  People seem to feel that they need to have “everything,” which is simply not possible.  They look at what others are doing and think, “hey that works well for them, we should do it too.”  What often gets overlooked or neglected is whether the added component might be incompatible with the structural foundation of the system.  People often fail to consider what should NOT be added.



Doesn't matter. You just change your structure mid fight. Which should happen anyway.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Under hook and over hook can be used to counter each other.
> 
> When you use
> 
> - over hook, I can use under hook to counter you.
> - under hook, I can use over hook to counter you.


Only the underhook gives you control of the torso, especially if you get two of them. As a wrestler you must agree that is the superior position.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Only the underhook gives you control of the torso, especially if you get two of them. As a wrestler you must agree that is the superior position.


This is the beauty of the underhook (or overhook). You just need 1 to control your opponent's whole body.






When you use overhook, if you put the back of your palm against your opponent's chest, you can crack on your opponent's elbow joint. It's the best counter to against your opponent's waist wrap.


----------



## Argus

I don't see any reason why you couldn't transition into an under/over hook from a position in Wing Chun.
But that is getting into grappling which is distinctly different from Wing Chun. I think, instead of trying to add that to Wing Chun, it's better to just learn each separately and transition between the two depending on the need/situation.
Of course, there are some locks and throws that are better suited to Wing Chun's structure as well, and those might be easily adopted. But my brief experience trying to learn some Judo throws (with a Judoka) quickly showed me that I needed to learn a lot more about judo's mechanics and structure to make them effective -- my Wing Chun training alone wasn't enough to make them work well. So, perhaps it's better to just learn the systems separately rather than to confuse yourself / your students, especially in the beginning, I think. Then you can transition freely.


----------



## Ivan

Flying Crane said:


> You are making a lot of blanket statements about wing Chun and those who practice it.  On what do you base these statements?


On the reality behind a large portion of traditional martial arts. The fact is, that there are very little TMAs that train the way modern combat sports do. You could list Pankration as one as it involves a lot of sparring and pressure testing, but almost every traditional eastern asian martial art is devoid of any sparring. The culture behind sparring is very different - this is evidenced by how (instead of sparring) Karate practitioners would practice their techniques by getting into street fights - see number 1.

Next, we have the complexity of traditional martial arts compared to the more modern combat arts. How many techniques would you say there are in Boxing? Because I can certainly gurantee that it doesn't have as many as, say, Shorinji Kempo, which easily amasses over 200 techniques. After all, it's a hybrid martial art that includes striking, grappling, takedowns, clinching, numerous stances and breakfalls. When you compare these two martial arts in a no rule fight it'd be easy to say that Kempo comes out on top, right? But there's one caveat.

The majority of Shorinji Kempo practitioners don't spar - they use Randori. Do you understand the consequences of this? A boxer has to focus on less than 20 techniques and can polish them near infintely with sparring. Shorinji Kempo practioners not only have a wider variety of techniques (which is what makes their martial art more technical) but also can't pressure test them to the same extent. The same is the case many Wing Chun schools - stereotypes are created for a reason. Do you think it's a coincidence that all the Wing Chun masters in China are getting beaten up by MMA fighters with ease? 

The fact is, Traditional Martial Arts take much longer time to learn and be used correctly. This is because of the extent of their techniques, and the lack of more modern and useful training methods. Don't get me wrong, I'm a traditionalist at heart. I love old school stuff. I love to believe that there is hidden wisdom in older methods and practices passed down by our ancestors. But sometimes, the practices we create have their own wisdom too.


----------

