# Wing Chun Coaches and Fighters to Watch



## geezer (Nov 3, 2019)

Personally, I'm a geezer (big surprise there!) and my Wing Chun is pretty traditional or conventional Yip Man lineage stuff. However I'm intrigued by some of the innovative  coaches who are adapting Wing Chun principles into broader, modern fighting contexts, including (in some cases) MMA or similar competition. 

Two well known figures that come to mind are Alan Orr and Mark Phillips. Do you know of anybody that is working with Wing Chun in such an innovative way and having some success? And, what is your take on this approach to WC? Does it have value? Are they adding to or weakening the art?


----------



## Martial D (Nov 4, 2019)

I was all about stripping down the model T and souping it up with a modern engine, suspension, and tires.

At some point I decided to just put that stuff in a less restrictive chassis I guess.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 4, 2019)

I like the Alan Orr stuff but honestly I don't watch much of it.
I don't know if it's the accent or what but he just seems to ramble on and on


----------



## jobo (Nov 5, 2019)

geezer said:


> Personally, I'm a geezer (big surprise there!) and my Wing Chun is pretty traditional or conventional Yip Man lineage stuff. However I'm intrigued by some of the innovative  coaches who are adapting Wing Chun principles into broader, modern fighting contexts, including (in some cases) MMA or similar competition.
> 
> Two well known figures that come to mind are Alan Orr and Mark Phillips. Do you know of anybody that is working with Wing Chun in such an innovative way and having some success? And, what is your take on this approach to WC? Does it have value? Are they adding to or weakening the art?


your the WC expert, so a question for you, how much can you improve WC and it still be WC

it seems to the outside observer that a lot of the very essence of WC needs to go, to put it on a level playing field with some combat arts, at which point the WC disciples are likely to call foul that there art is being desecrated.

To be fair i have much the same issue with karate, with my instructor often telling me that what i view as an improvement to various things ( certainly improvement to suit my body mechanics and physical attributes ) is NOT karate any more. but as i can generally knock him over using not karate, it asking a fundamental question on who is right on the best application of the techniques, me or a 100 years of dogma


----------



## geezer (Nov 5, 2019)

jobo said:


> your the WC expert, so a question for you, how much can you improve WC and it still be WC
> 
> it seems to the outside observer that a lot of the very essence of WC needs to go, to put it on a level playing field with some combat arts, at which point the WC disciples are likely to call foul that there art is being desecrated.
> 
> To be fair i have much the same issue with karate, with my instructor often telling me that what i view as an improvement to various things ( certainly improvement to suit my body mechanics and physical attributes ) is NOT karate any more. but as i can generally knock him over using not karate, it asking a fundamental question on who is right on the best application of the techniques, me or a 100 years of dogma



1. I have been doing WC a fair while, but I'm no expert.
2. What you said. ...Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about what others think is proper karate or kung fu. If works OK. If it doesn't it'll die out. Whether it's "proper" or not.


----------



## geezer (Nov 5, 2019)

yak sao said:


> I like the Alan Orr stuff but honestly I don't watch much of it. I don't know if it's the accent or what but* he just seems to ramble on and on*



This ...coming from somebody who uses the name_ Yak Sau. 
_
OK, I admit I don't watch all that much of his stuff either, but I thought it was just my short attention span.


----------



## Zeno Bokor (Nov 5, 2019)

We had a big discussion on modern vs traditional wing chun a few weeks ago. The consensus was that the main difference between modern and traditional martial arts was the emphasis on fights for the more modern styles while the more traditional versions tend to also teach the art part of the martial arts. If all you're looking for is how to beat somebody while you're young, healthy (and in the same weight class as the opponent) then don't look for styles that emphasize working softly, not opposing the opponents power, etc, things that most people would classify as traditional because you aren't looking for a martial art, you're looking for a fighting sport. Martial arts are for those that want to be able to defend themselves when they get attacked in a dark alley by a guy that's stronger/bigger/faster/younger than they are. Martial artists don't get into fights, fighters do.

Our sigung tends to be a bit more pragmatic than the normal old chinese master, for him the most important thing is that you can use a technique effectively in a realistic attack and not that you use only things that are considered traditional (somebody attacks you with a weapon and you get into a problem while trying to disarm him? go for the groin). I tend to go a bit further along this line of thinking: i've seen the form of our sigung from ~30 years ago and it has evolved a lot since then (which was also different from what yip man was doing in those old videos) so why are we grasshoppers worrying about what wing chun should look like? yip man probably never called his style "chan wa shun wing chun" the same as my sigung doesn't call his style "yip man wing chun" because wing chun is and has always been evolving, the same as any good story that gets passed down through the generations.


----------



## jobo (Nov 5, 2019)

Zeno Bokor said:


> We had a big discussion on modern vs traditional wing chun a few weeks ago. The consensus was that the main difference between modern and traditional martial arts was the emphasis on fights for the more modern styles while the more traditional versions tend to also teach the art part of the martial arts. If all you're looking for is how to beat somebody while you're young, healthy (and in the same weight class as the opponent) then don't look for styles that emphasize working softly, not opposing the opponents power, etc, things that most people would classify as traditional because you aren't looking for a martial art, you're looking for a fighting sport. Martial arts are for those that want to be able to defend themselves when they get attacked in a dark alley by a guy that's stronger/bigger/faster/younger than they are. Martial artists don't get into fights, fighters do.
> 
> Our sigung tends to be a bit more pragmatic than the normal old chinese master, for him the most important thing is that you can use a technique effectively in a realistic attack and not that you use only things that are considered traditional (somebody attacks you with a weapon and you get into a problem while trying to disarm him? go for the groin). I tend to go a bit further along this line of thinking: i've seen the form of our sigung from ~30 years ago and it has evolved a lot since then (which was also different from what yip man was doing in those old videos) so why are we grasshoppers worrying about what wing chun should look like? yip man probably never called his style "chan wa shun wing chun" the same as my sigung doesn't call his style "yip man wing chun" because wing chun is and has always been evolving, the same as any good story that gets passed down through the generations.



that first paragraph is completely disjointed from reality, there is not different at all between having the ability to '' fight'' an opponent and the ability to defend yourself in a dark alley, non at all. If you can do one, you can do the other. if you cant do one, you cant expect to do the other to any standard, unless your relying on the alleyway attacker being an incompetent drunk, but your sayingstronger, younger bigger, faster and presumably not so drunk they cant coordinate


----------



## Zeno Bokor (Nov 5, 2019)

There is a big difference between the two, on one hand you're training to beat the smeg out of somebody and you don't really mind if you take a few hits as long as you give more than you get you will win. Our sigung was also like than when he was young but he started to change his mentality after getting over 60 and now he says "hitting somebody is easy, not getting hit is the hard part" (only in broken english). Also, when somebody attacks you on the street there are a few big differences from cage fights, like for instance the guy attacking you will actually attack you and not start sparring with you, maintaining fighting distance and all that.

Your lineage must be very different from mine because we always place emphasis on not using power against an enemy because that only works against those that are weaker than us and obviously those guys wouldn't attack us in the first place.

edit: also, have you ever seen videos of muggings and the like? do they really look no different to you compared to ufc fights? the ones i've seen tend to end in like 5 seconds


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 5, 2019)

Zeno Bokor said:


> like for instance the guy attacking you will actually attack you and not start sparring with you



Yeah those dudes who practice how to fight day in and day out, and have trained for months leading up to this one moment where the thing standing between them and victory is you still being conscious sure are low key.

I know the point you were trying to make, but you really shot your credibility with this one.


----------



## Zeno Bokor (Nov 5, 2019)

Eric_H said:


> I know the point you were trying to make, but you really shot your credibility with this one.



oh, i'm sorry, did i use the wrong word? english is only my third language


----------



## Willzzz (Nov 5, 2019)

Alan Orr's fighters are the only ones where I don't cringe when I'm watching them fight. Their clinch work is genuinely impressive. 

Doesn't look much like any wing chun I've seen, and that's probably a good thing. Make of that what you will.


----------



## jobo (Nov 5, 2019)

Zeno Bokor said:


> There is a big difference between the two, on one hand you're training to beat the smeg out of somebody and you don't really mind if you take a few hits as long as you give more than you get you will win. Our sigung was also like than when he was young but he started to change his mentality after getting over 60 and now he says "hitting somebody is easy, not getting hit is the hard part" (only in broken english). Also, when somebody attacks you on the street there are a few big differences from cage fights, like for instance the guy attacking you will actually attack you and not start sparring with you, maintaining fighting distance and all that.
> 
> Your lineage must be very different from mine because we always place emphasis on not using power against an enemy because that only works against those that are weaker than us and obviously those guys wouldn't attack us in the first place.
> 
> edit: also, have you ever seen videos of muggings and the like? do they really look no different to you compared to ufc fights? the ones i've seen tend to end in like 5 seconds



i don't even know where to start this, lots of fights end in a few seconds, because of the physical discrepancy between the two protagonists, so the question is will it end in your favour or the other guys, if the guy is younger, stronger bigger faster, then there's a good chance that a few seconds  is all he needs to dismantle you and your soft touch style. so you need to train to beat the smeg out of someone, cause that's what you will likely need to do to walk away relatively unscathed, that's before you ask yourself the question of why is he stronger and faster and what can you do to close that gap  or even have it in your favour

the alternative is to believe that what ever your skill set is can deal with a physically superior opponent with out any evidence to support your view, of course its very very easy to test


----------



## geezer (Nov 5, 2019)

Zeno Bokor said:


> oh, i'm sorry, did i use the wrong word? english is only my third language



Pardon the short digression, but your English is just fine. So, what are your first and second languages?


----------



## geezer (Nov 5, 2019)

jobo said:


> ...if the guy is younger, stronger bigger faster, then there's a good chance that a few seconds  is all he needs to dismantle you and your* soft touch* style.



_Soft touch_ style? The objective of the Wing Chun I learned was to be "soft" i.e. springy, loose and relaxed, and to deflect, slip or evade an attack rather than block it, and also to be relaxed so you could hit_ harder_. Never heard anything about a soft touch regarding hitting!

In fact, a lot of the same ideas could be said of boxers like Ali. So that part is not really as dumb as you made it sound. 

...On the other hand, as far as the younger, bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive guy winning... what makes you think _that's_ likely?


----------



## jobo (Nov 5, 2019)

geezer said:


> _Soft touch_ style? The objective of the Wing Chun I learned was to be "soft" i.e. springy, loose and relaxed, and to deflect, slip or evade an attack rather than block it, and also to be relaxed so you could hit_ harder_. Never heard anything about a soft touch regarding hitting!
> 
> In fact, a lot of the same ideas could be said of boxers like Ali. So that part is not really as dumb as you made it sound.
> 
> ...On the other hand, as far as the younger, bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive guy winning... what makes you think _that's_ likely?


there's nothing wrong with slipping and moving, there's nothing wrong with yielding and redirecting, but i'm making reference to his statement that they are trained not to use power, that makes punching hard exceptionally difficult, hence my reference to soft touch


----------



## yak sao (Nov 5, 2019)

jobo said:


> there's nothing wrong with slipping and moving, there's nothing wrong with yielding and redirecting, but i'm making reference to his statement that they are trained not to use power, that makes punching hard exceptionally difficult, hence my reference to soft touch



Playing devil's advocate here...since English is his 3rd language perhaps he was referring to brute strength more so than power?


----------



## Zeno Bokor (Nov 6, 2019)

jobo said:


> there's nothing wrong with slipping and moving, there's nothing wrong with yielding and redirecting, but i'm making reference to his statement that they are trained not to use power, that makes punching hard exceptionally difficult, hence my reference to soft touch


excuse me, where did i say that we don't use power in punches? there's a saying in our country that goes "you've made a horse out of a mosquito". To generate a bigger impact we stay relaxed while punching until the last moment when we tense up as otherwise you'd destroy your wrist from the impact. The reason being that when you tense up your arm you also tense up your biceps which is used for pulling and not pushing so your punch is slower and speed*mass=force.

 soft for us is to use less muscle tension than your opponent so  that you can switch between working fast while defending and using power when you want to. if you're using more muscle tension than your opponent then how can you feel anything when you get to chi sao range? and if you can't feel then how will you be able to react to him? hands being faster than the eyes and all that. (our style places more emphasis on defense and keeping ourselves safe, probably also because our sigung is 87yo)

My first two languages are Romanian and Hungarian.


----------



## jobo (Nov 6, 2019)

yak sao said:


> Playing devil's advocate here...since English is his 3rd language perhaps he was referring to brute strength more so than power?


BRUTE, strength is just a pejorative term for people who are stronger than you. strength is just strength, you either have a lot of it or you don't, there's no brute about it.

to all practical purposes, unless you want a hair splitting scientific discussion, power and strength are so synonymous that they are more or less interchangeable. strength is the ability to generate energy to overcome a resistance, power is the ability to move a resistance in order to do work, the only intrinsic difference is the unit of measurement


----------



## jobo (Nov 6, 2019)

Zeno Bokor said:


> excuse me, where did i say that we don't use power in punches? there's a saying in our country that goes "you've made a horse out of a mosquito". To generate a bigger impact we stay relaxed while punching until the last moment when we tense up as otherwise you'd destroy your wrist from the impact. The reason being that when you tense up your arm you also tense up your biceps which is used for pulling and not pushing so your punch is slower and speed*mass=force.
> 
> soft for us is to use less muscle tension than your opponent so  that you can switch between working fast while defending and using power when you want to. if you're using more muscle tension than your opponent then how can you feel anything when you get to chi sao range? and if you can't feel then how will you be able to react to him? hands being faster than the eyes and all that. (our style places more emphasis on defense and keeping ourselves safe, probably also because our sigung is 87yo)
> 
> My first two languages are Romanian and Hungarian.


Well where you expressly said @we are trained not to use power. either you are trained not to use power or your are. i have no idea im just reading what you wrote.

the stuff about controlling muscle tension is nothing to do with not using power, good power development requires neurological control.

i'm not sure that training a style based on the physical abilities of an 87 year old is a wise choice, unless you are also nearly 90


----------



## Zeno Bokor (Nov 6, 2019)

I think that we're starting to argue about semantics. The way i see it, you can arrange all the martial arts in the world based on how much power/strength/etc you use where stuff like muay thai is on one end of the spectrum and things like tai chi and other internal martial arts are on the other end of the spectrum. Wing chun is more towards the tai chi side. Sure, we use more strength than tai chi but it's still much closer to that than to kick boxing for instance. And to make it clear, i'm talking about the historical usage of the style, i'm sure you'll find wing chun styles that are more strength based, especially in the west but the version taught in asia isn't like that (with exceptions of course). 

Also, yes, the closer you are to the internal styles like bagua the longer the road to being able to use the style in actual combat but that doesn't mean that the style isn't good (unless you're looking for a fight), just that it's more about a way of life than a way of fighting. And this i think is the reason why you don't see so many fighters using wing chun in mma fight.

I don't train to fight but i can defend myself (we do live sparring exercises) and i'm sure that i'm not as good a fighter as those that train for that specifically but i'm also sure that what i learn now i'll still be able to use when i'll be in my 60's. There are old warriors and there are bold warriors but there are no old bold warriors; i want to be able to become an old warrior someday.


----------



## jobo (Nov 6, 2019)

Zeno Bokor said:


> I think that we're starting to argue about semantics. The way i see it, you can arrange all the martial arts in the world based on how much power/strength/etc you use where stuff like muay thai is on one end of the spectrum and things like tai chi and other internal martial arts are on the other end of the spectrum. Wing chun is more towards the tai chi side. Sure, we use more strength than tai chi but it's still much closer to that than to kick boxing for instance. And to make it clear, i'm talking about the historical usage of the style, i'm sure you'll find wing chun styles that are more strength based, especially in the west but the version taught in asia isn't like that (with exceptions of course).
> 
> Also, yes, the closer you are to the internal styles like bagua the longer the road to being able to use the style in actual combat but that doesn't mean that the style isn't good (unless you're looking for a fight), just that it's more about a way of life than a way of fighting. And this i think is the reason why you don't see so many fighters using wing chun in mma fight.
> 
> I don't train to fight but i can defend myself (we do live sparring exercises) and i'm sure that i'm not as good a fighter as those that train for that specifically but i'm also sure that what i learn now i'll still be able to use when i'll be in my 60's. There are old warriors and there are bold warriors but there are no old bold warriors; i want to be able to become an old warrior someday.


 your just repeating the same incorrect conclusion as before with no attempt to provide justification for your statements.
techniques can over come a size strength deficiete, that really the essence of martial training. but there are no techniques that can over come a serious size strength deficiete or perhaps very very few people who have the ability to use the techniques effectively to overcome that deficiete.

and again, an ability to defend yourself effectively is an ability to fight and vice versa, you can't have one without the other, if your using internal or external styles doesn't change that.

and i can see no time frame in that tai chi will ever become an effective combat art and this thread is about how do you change WC so it does become an effective combat art, your seemed claim that it already is flies in the face of logic, that not to say it doesn't have benefits, just that turning you into a highly efficient fighter isn't one of them.

nb i am in my 60 and i see no issue with using power techniques, strength is one of the last physical attributes to desert you with age


----------



## Zeno Bokor (Nov 6, 2019)

jobo said:


> but there are no techniques that can over come a serious size strength deficiete or perhaps very very few people who have the ability to use the techniques effectively to overcome that deficiete.


I don't know how you do your tan sao but one of the ways that i test if it's good is by hitting full blast directly to the centerline while the other guy is standing on one leg (and not moving). A properly executed tan sao deflects the opponents power without needing any power or grounding from the practitioner. Same with bong sao. You shouldn't feel the power of the opponents strike when defending using tan sao (as long as the strike is directly to the center line), if you are then you're doing something wrong. (do i have to say that if the opponent doesn't hit like a wing chun practitioner then just move away?)



jobo said:


> and i can see no time frame in that tai chi will ever become an effective combat art and this thread is about how do you change WC so it does become an effective combat art, your seemed claim that it already is flies in the face of logic, that not to say it doesn't have benefits, just that turning you into a highly efficient fighter isn't one of them.


Tai chi requires a lot of years to become effective and there are very few teachers in the west that can teach the combat part of it. It's actually a very brutal martial art when done correctly, it's just that what you see everywhere is more qigong than anything else. I'm sure you don't have any reason to believe this, but i've seen a few tai chi practitioners when i was in the Taipei peace park and you could clearly see the martial part of the martial art in their movement.
Also, you seem to have gotten my point backwards, i said that wing chun is closer to tai chi than to muay thai as a reason why you don't see many fighters use it, because it's not as effective as a fighting style. Basically the more complex the martial art, the harder it will be to use in a cage fight (i'm talking about striking arts), the better it will be in the long run as a lifestyle choice.


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 6, 2019)

Zene: just go to nearest MMA, boxing, sambo etc full contact sport club and ask for hard sparring. Or if you do not like sport rules ("there is no rules on the streets") just go to football (european football, not american) fans and tell them that team they are supporting is piece of ****. Nothing can replace personal experience.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 7, 2019)

jobo said:


> BRUTE, strength is just a pejorative term for people who are stronger than you. strength is just strength, you either have a lot of it or you don't, there's no brute about it.



Exactly. We're not trying to pit our strength against his strength. If martial arts are simply about the person who's bigger and stronger then why are we wasting our time learning how to punch and kick?

The would-be street attacker is not looking for someone bigger and stronger than him as his victim. He is looking for someone smaller and who he perceives weaker than him.

Most of us don't have the time the inclination or even the DNA to become big and powerfull, martial arts gives the normal everyday person an edge that we otherwise wouldn't have.


----------



## jobo (Nov 7, 2019)

yak sao said:


> Exactly. We're not trying to pit our strength against his strength. If martial arts are simply about the person who's bigger and stronger then why are we wasting our time learning how to punch and kick?
> 
> The would-be street attacker is not looking for someone bigger and stronger than him as his victim. He is looking for someone smaller and who he perceives weaker than him.
> 
> Most of us don't have the time the inclination or even the DNA to become big and powerfull, martial arts gives the normal everyday person an edge that we otherwise wouldn't have.



for possibly the same reason that people who are big and strong learn to kick and punch,
 SO why not be stronger and learn martial arts, then you really have edge ?

it's far from time consuming, say 20 minutes a week , in five mins a day intervals 4 times a week to make significant strength gains over a few months. IF your spending upwards of two hours a week learning ma, in case your attacked it seem false economy of time not to throw in another  20 minutes on physical conditioning.

you can more or less do it in commercial breaks, i do a lot of mine in one minute intervals whilst im waiting for the kettle to boil


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 7, 2019)

yak sao said:


> .... If martial arts are simply about the person who's bigger and stronger then why are we wasting our time learning how to punch and kick? ....


Everybody can punch and kick (what means generate some power/energy with muscles and transmit it to opponent body to break it - more power/energy  your muscle can generate more you can break). Martial arts are about using muscles in more effective way (better muscle's coordination and cooperation, what results in generating more power) in right time in right tactical situation. And about a few other things, but strenght is one of the most important factors in a fight (strong muscles genarate more power).


----------



## yak sao (Nov 7, 2019)

That's not my point.
I strength train and encourage my students to do likewise.

But not so you can outmuscle your opponent.


----------



## jobo (Nov 8, 2019)

yak sao said:


> That's not my point.
> I strength train and encourage my students to do likewise.
> 
> But not so you can outmuscle your opponent.


 so what is your point, you said above you don't have the time or inclination to train strength, now your saying you do.

but yes there is no need to out muscle your opponent unless your opponent is out muscling you, then your in trouble.

I know from hard experience that most techniques are border line useless if your up against, in your words, someone younger bigger, stronger and faster than you.

if you don't also know that its because you haven't tested them against someone who is younger bigger faster and stronger than you, who also has ill intent. you may be able to catch them by surprise and run,


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 8, 2019)

yak sao said:


> ...But not so you can outmuscle your opponent.


Why not? If it is the easiest way to win the fight then outmuscle him. It the street, yes? No rules, yes? Use everything you can to win the fight. If you are stronger than opponent just use the strenght. Paradoxically it's often more difficult to outmuscle somebody in sport fight because of weight categories than in "no rules street fight" and martial arts sportmen have to rely more often on the skills than "streetfighters". 
Mind, skillset, speed, strenght, stamina - all those factors can decide on victory and good martial arts school develop all of them. Many WC challenge fight videos shows WC adepts as skinny and weak comparing to their opponents, so they even cannot compensate the lack of fightig ability with pure strenght. Good example of value of strenght are Bob Sapp early fights (when he wanted to fight really) especially the Sapp-Minotauro and Sapp-Hoost or Sapp-Abidi fights.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 8, 2019)

jobo said:


> so what is your point, you said above you don't have the time or inclination to train strength, now your saying you do.
> 
> but yes there is no need to out muscle your opponent unless your opponent is out muscling you, then your in trouble.
> 
> ...



I didn't say I don't have time.


----------

