# Wing Chun applications in MMA or the street



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 12, 2016)




----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2016)

I think there might be a little bit of grasping involved.

Alan Orr is one of those guys I wouldn't want to train with. Just this wing chun agenda stuff. The force flow. Just all gets a bit weird for me.


----------



## guy b (Jun 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The force flow. Just all gets a bit weird for me.



I find the fact that loads of video clips are produced but none have helped to improve my understanding puts me off it as a training method. They seem to like to obscure rather than clarify. Force flow is a good example.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2016)

guy b said:


> I find the fact that loads of video clips are produced but none have helped to improve my understanding puts me off it as a training method. They seem to like to obscure rather than clarify. Force flow is a good example.



Here is your force flow.





The thing is I think he has legitimate training in spite of that. But you don't have to make everything wing chun. Underhooks for example?


----------



## Buka (Jun 12, 2016)

I had a really hard time understanding the OP video. Partly because of the echo off the cement wall behind the man speaking and partly because of his accent.

I think some of my lack of understanding might also be because his opponent/training partner seemed less of a physical match/threat than he was.

I'm just lost. Probably because I'm old.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The thing is I think he has legitimate training in spite of that. But you don't have to make everything wing chun. Underhooks for example?



Exactly. He appears to just be looking for familiar shapes he can call Wing Chun in an MMA fight, even if the concepts are entirely different. 

Underhooks look like _taan-sau_? Holding someone's wrist down looks like _gam-sau_? Okay, let's call it all Wing Chun now!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

Buka said:


> partly because of his accent.



The echo yes but he doesn't have an accent, his English is standard BBC. He's been an actor and voiceover artist so speaks properly.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> The echo yes but he doesn't have an accent, his English is standard BBC.



That is an accent. Someone only "doesn't have an accent" when you share the same accent with them.



> He's been an actor and voiceover artist so speaks properly.



Really? He's often mumbly as hell!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That is an accent. Someone only "doesn't have an accent" when you share the same accent with them



Sorry, no you are incorrect. We have hundreds of accents here in the UK, and as you don't know what accent I have you can't say that I don't think he has an accent because we speak the same one. My husband who has a strong Yorkshire accent agrees that this chap speaks 'standard' English, I can hear very slightly certain intonations that give away his origins but if you can't hear what he's saying it's due to bad production values not his accent.
So which one is Alan's accent then? A tour of the British Isles in accents, The Film Programme - BBC Radio 4


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

A standard accent is still an accent. Maybe look up the definition of the word.

I can hear what he says just fine. It's just that he mumbles a lot. Some videos are better than others, but he's definitely a mumbler.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

LFJ said:


> A standard accent is still an accent. Maybe look up the definition of the word.
> 
> I can hear what he says just fine. It's just that he mumbles a lot. Some videos are better than others, but he's definitely a mumbler.



LOL, perhaps you don't want to hear what he's saying. I love that you are trying to tell me about UK accents and think we all sound the same. Actually I think you'll find that accents and dialects which many of us speak here are very different from each other even within a few miles, I don't need to 'look it up' I studied it at uni. So, what 'accent' does Alan have?
I get you don't like the video but blaming 'an accent' is somewhat spurious.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

I never said there aren't many different accents and dialects in the UK, or that you all sound the same.

There is just no such thing as "no accent".


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 13, 2016)

Buka said:


> I had a really hard time understanding the OP video. Partly because of the echo off the cement wall behind the man speaking and partly because of his accent.
> 
> I think some of my lack of understanding might also be because his opponent/training partner seemed less of a physical match/threat than he was.
> 
> I'm just lost. Probably because I'm old.


It also probably doesn't help if you aren't familiar with the WC terminology - tan sau, fook sau, bil gee, etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I never said there aren't many different accents and dialects in the UK, or that you all sound the same.
> 
> There is just no such thing as "no accent".



Actually you did  


LFJ said:


> Someone only "doesn't have an accent" when you share the same accent with them.



it's still a poor excuse, if you don't like what he's doing on the video say so, don't use his 'accent' as an excuse.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

That quote doesn't say anything about there not being different accents and dialects in the UK...?

I can assume you share his accent if you think he has "no accent", or you are just calling a standard accent "no accent".

I did address issues with what he was saying in the video in my first post. I'm just commenting on _you_ saying he has "no accent". That's unrelated to what he was actually talking about.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

Sigh, you have no idea how I speak, there is no such thing as a 'standard' accent in the UK, there is Received Pronunciation which is how the Queen speaks and then there are dialects which is what most people actually speak here, often called an accent because it's easier to. In the UK, people pronounce words differently from each other and often have different words entirely for the same thing. To say you can't understand a man because he speaks RP is odd, to say you can't understand him because of technical issues is actually the case.


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2016)

Oh fr petes sake.  He's saying he doesn't understand him because he's a mumbler.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 13, 2016)

Steve said:


> Oh fr petes sake.  He's saying he doesn't understand him because he's a mumbler.



I'm sorry......say again?.........


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> there is no such thing as a 'standard' accent in the UK,



Then WTF did you say your husband agrees (with you) that "this chap speaks _standard English_"?



> there is Received Pronunciation which is how the Queen speaks and then there are dialects which is what most people actually speak here, often called an accent because it's easier to.



RP is a particular accent in spoken English.



> To say you can't understand a man because he speaks RP is odd, to say you can't understand him because of technical issues is actually the case.



I didn't say I couldn't understand him for either of those reasons or even at all.

Any time I've had trouble understanding him, it's been because he mumbles. Mumblers cause their listeners problems regardless of accent.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Then WTF did you say your husband agrees (with you) that "this chap speaks _standard English_"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, oh good grief, you are getting upset aren't you. Standard English isn't an accent it's RP. Pronunciation isn't an accent, it's how you pronounce words. RP is the correct way to pronounce words.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

So what do you think an accent is?

accent - definition of accent in English from the Oxford dictionary
"A distinctive way of *pronouncing* a language, especially one *associated with a particular country, area, or social class:*"

received pronunciation - definition of received pronunciation in English from the Oxford dictionary
"The standard form of British English *pronunciation*, based on *educated speech in southern England*, widely accepted as a standard elsewhere."


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

Roflmao. wow you certainly have your knickers in a twist, trying to prove you are correct aren't you, I suppose the actual subject matter of WC is of little interest to you. I suppose too non Brits can believe what they want, nothing stopping them.
Ok, now look up 'dialect' which is what most people in the UK actually speak but as I said people call it an accent. Dialect - Oxford Dictionaries


----------



## LFJ (Jun 13, 2016)

Dialects? Irrelevant. Not interested.

I already said what I had to say about the Wing Chun in the video. 

People don't understand him because he mumbles and mumblers cause their listeners problems which are exacerbated when they speak with a foreign accent unfamiliar to the listener. So I understand what Buka was saying. That's it.


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2016)

yak sao said:


> I'm sorry......say again?.........


I said he didn't understand him bec... h....  a mum....r.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 13, 2016)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*_
* Please, return to the original topic.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MartialTalk Moderator-*


----------



## geezer (Jun 13, 2016)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> _*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> *_
> * Please, return to the original topic.
> 
> ...



Oh c'mon Brian... admittedly we were getting off track, but the conversation was absolutely hilarious. And relevant in that the audio was a bit of a problem on this particular clip. Normally Alan is clear and easy to understand. His accent (yes I admit we all have one) seems pretty straight-up BBC to me. And really, newscaster English on either side of the pond is about as easy to understand as it gets.

Anyway, this all started with that evil _Buka. _Hey Buka, you provincial colonist, if this gives you trouble, I recommend you start listening to the _BBC Today_ broadcast on NPR or watch some good "Brit-coms" on Hulu or Netflix. We all have pride in our dialects, but it's important to be able to understand other people too.

Speaking of which, Wing Chun, like most other martial arts, has so many versions ..._or accents and dialects,_ if you will. Ironically, I'm sure the WC community on this forum will recognize that LFJ is just as opinionated about the _dialects of WC _as he is about the dialects of English. In fact I'm sure he views his own posh branch of VT as the RP of WC ...if you catch my drift!


----------



## geezer (Jun 13, 2016)

OK, now back to the video. One point Alan makes is that WC _fighting_ doesn't necessarily have to look like WC _training_. 

A beginner just holds his hands in fists all the time and tries to guard and strike however he can. 

Then he (or she) is taught classic picture-perfect versions of techniques like tan-da, pak-da, bong sau, lap-da and so on, training and internalizing structures and concepts. 

Finally, at the advanced level, the fighter can use these concepts without ever actually posing a text-book tan, pak, etc. He can hold his hands in fists all the time and  wear gloves, and use his bridges to accomplish all the same functions as before, while fighting very naturally. In other words, you come back to the beginning ...only a whole lot better!

I have actually heard many other, far more traditional practitioners say pretty much the same thing. Certainly I heard it from Emin, and perhaps more surprisingly from my old sifu LT, who told us that if you really, _really_ have good Wing Tsun, you can move looking like a boxer, a muay thai guy, or anything else _and still apply your WC._


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2016)

geezer said:


> OK, now back to the video. One point Alan makes is that WC _fighting_ doesn't necessarily have to look like WC _training_.
> 
> A beginner just holds his hands in fists all the time and tries to guard and strike however he can.
> 
> ...



Which i agree with. But with a massive but in this case.  Wing chun looks like boxing and wrestling training in this example.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2016)

Hard to talk about the topic when people complain they can't understand plain English lol.
Linguistics (specialising in dialectology) is my pet subject so I tend to like talking about it. Well, everyone should have an ology.


----------



## geezer (Jun 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Which i agree with   ...*with a massive butt...*



I know Alan has put on a bit since his earlier  fighting days, ...still _that _seems a little harsh....

Seriously though, what's wrong with WC that trains a little boxing and wrestling? Sounds like a workable mix to me ...especially if you are training for MMA.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2016)

geezer said:


> I know Alan has put on a bit since his earlier  fighting days, ...still _that _seems a little harsh....
> 
> Seriously though, what's wrong with WC that trains a little boxing and wrestling? Sounds like a workable mix to me ...especially if you are training for MMA.



Nothing. It is trying to manufacture wing chun concepts into other systems that is a bit weird. And very wing chun to be honest. 

Mma works in exactly the opposite way.  It takes other concepts and makes them mma.


----------



## geezer (Jun 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Nothing. It is trying to manufacture wing chun concepts into other systems *that is a bit weird. And very wing chun* to be honest. Mma works in exactly the opposite way.  It takes other concepts and makes them mma.



Interesting comment. Especially the bolded part. Maybe WC should translate into_ Wierd Chun?  _

Honestly, I don't know much about MMA, but I have a friend who is an MMA coach here in our metro area. He's mainly into boxing, FMA and JJJ.  He knows a little WC and sees a lot of shared concepts. His problem with WC is _the way it's trained_. He believes it's not practical for producing fighters. Alan seems to be addressing some of the same problems. If it works, good. If not, well...


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2016)

geezer said:


> Interesting comment. Especially the bolded part. Maybe WC should translate into_ Wierd Chun?  _
> 
> Honestly, I don't know much about MMA, but I have a friend who is an MMA coach here in our metro area. He's mainly into boxing, FMA and JJJ.  He knows a little WC and sees a lot of shared concepts. His problem with WC is _the way it's trained_. He believes it's not practical for producing fighters. Alan seems to be addressing some of the same problems. If it works, good. If not, well...



I remember a time when chun really had the hook punch all along.  I cant find anything on that do take it for what it is worth.

what you get is guys applying chun principles on this belief that they were really there all along to all sorts of silly situations.

At its worst case you get nimbskulls puliing guard and then throwing chain punches because it is all the same concepts.

Admittedly alan orr is a best case scenario where his stuff does seem to actually work and you just have to put up with a bit of force flow nonsense and ego. Until you can get on with the actual applied training that he obviously does.

But otherwise yeah i think the vertical punch thing is kind of valid.  And there was a nice rear naked choke set up that legitimately uses chun ideas. 

But you need to be a bit objective. you cant go searching for principles to validate your mind set.  Because they either do or they don't. And all the wanting this stuff to work wont make it work.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> OK, now back to the video. One point Alan makes is that WC _fighting_ doesn't necessarily have to look like WC _training_.
> 
> A beginner just holds his hands in fists all the time and tries to guard and strike however he can.
> 
> ...



Exactly.  I some people aren't a fan of this guy, he is an opinionated loud mouth, but at least he admits to being an opinionated loud mouth lol.  However like him or hate him, say what he does is or is not "real" WC, but his methods work as evidenced by the fact you can actually find newspaper articles of him getting awards from his PD for disarming knife wielding suspects and the like.   I definitely shares this attitude regarding advanced application.  

It starts to get to the point at about 3:00 though earlier he makes a good point that most of what one may call techniques in WC are, when you break em down, essentially using the same forwarding energy principles of a punch (but that's not really relevant to this conversation.) Never studied with him myself but it makes a lot of sense from my perspective, which is admittedly street application and not MMA.  It is kinda long, even starting at 3:00 but the idea that it doesn't have to look pretty once you have gotten past the learning phase is made throughout in addition to his basic philosophy of fighting.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 16, 2016)

I'm forced to agree with Drop Bear. If Orr had only trained in WC, and actually looked like a WC fighter when he fights in MMA, I could buy what he's selling. The problem is that when he fights he looks like a generic MMA fighter who learned MMA.

To see the opposite of this check out guys like Machida, A. Silva, Ryan Hall, Holdsworth, Rousey and Kron Gracie who are all using very distinct MA styles within MMA.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I'm forced to agree with Drop Bear. If Orr had only trained in WC, and actually looked like a WC fighter when he fights in MMA, I could buy what he's selling. The problem is that when he fights he looks like a generic MMA fighter who learned MMA.
> 
> To see the opposite of this check out guys like Machida, A. Silva, Ryan Hall, Holdsworth, Rousey and Kron Gracie who are all using very distinct MA styles within MMA.



I think the problem might be people don't understand something.  WC yes has forms, it has techniques but ultimately it is a conceptive art.  There is a technique called _tan sau_ which is used both to block.  If you watch the video I linked above, start at about 3:10 and watch it until about 5:00 you see Izzo say "_tan-sau_ is whatever you want it to be." WC ultimately can be boiled down to the following principles.
1. Centerline theory.
2. Structure
3. Forwarding energy with the focus being on the elbow, regardless of whether to are striking or defending.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I think the problem might be people don't understand something.  WC yes has forms, it has techniques but ultimately it is a conceptive art.  There is a technique called _tan sau_ which is used both to block.  If you watch the video I linked above, start at about 3:10 and watch it until about 5:00 you see Izzo say "_tan-sau_ is whatever you want it to be." WC ultimately can be boiled down to the following principles.
> 1. Centerline theory.
> 2. Structure
> 3. Forwarding energy with the focus being on the elbow, regardless of whether to are striking or defending.



Okay, but I have yet to see a MMA fighter utilize anything resembling "Tan-Sau" as demonstrated in that video during a fight. This includes Orr, who is clearly using standard MMA striking derived from kickboxing.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but I have yet to see a MMA fighter utilize anything resembling "Tan-Sau" as demonstrated in that video during a fight. This includes Orr, who is clearly using standard MMA striking derived from kickboxing.



I was just using that as an example.  However listen to what he is saying.  He is basing everything in a simple fact.  While I don't think he ever used the term "biomechanics" all humans, and thus all Martial Arts, can only move in so many ways.  He shows a _tan _in the video, though not as defense as one example.  The arm position is consistent when he uses it, he just illustrates a non-typical WC way it can be used, and is used, by wrestling in an application other than a block.  He trapped a hand with a _gum sau_ but it is something many other arts use as well, they may simply call it trapping and not have some flowery name.  In the form both hands come down in _gum_ but in practice only one hand can be used.  Yes the punches he did looked like kick boxing punches, but they also adhered to WC principles, the elbows were down, the fist with the palm facing in and coming from the centerline without rotation of the elbow or excessive use of the shoulder.

It's like what I did at work one night.  A _fak sau_ is essentially a knife hand or "chop", in the form it is done parallel to the ground.  Usually you see it as an attack to side of the head or neck while fighting an opponent.  I did it after stepping behind a suspects leading leg in order to execute a take down.  Now was that WC? Absolutely.  Would someone look at it and immediately say "that was WC?" No they wouldn't, they would see what appeared to be a simple take down maybe, from watching Steven Segal movies, assuming it was Aikido.

Now if you look at the art standing alone and in its totality, yes WC is different than other MAs. However when  you look at individual techniques, in practice, there are similarities with many other MAs, and tbh, there simply must be due to the very nature of biomechanics.  The differences will be terminology and at times intent.  He shows the example of the arm bar, in wrestling that would be to take the person down, in WC it would be to turn the opponent's blind side to the fighter so they can strike the vulnerable areas on the kidneys and maybe under the arm.  The take down I did, by a wrestler would be to do what I did, follow them to the ground so you can restrain them.  If I was doing it with WC intent it would be to ground and pound.

The problem is one of perspective I think.  You see things from the lens of your experience. If that is kick boxing then you will see kick boxing, if it is WC you see WC.  I learn two arts side by side, WC and Kali.  There are times when I watch fights and say "yep that's something I don't do", then times I say "hey we do that in WC" or " we do that in Kali ".  There are even times I say "he we do that in both WC and Kali." It is inevitable.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem is one of perspective I think.  You see things from the lens of your experience. If that is kick boxing then you will see kick boxing, if it is WC you see WC.  I learn two arts side by side, WC and Kali.  There are times when I watch fights and say "yep that's something I don't do", then times I say "hey we do that in WC" or " we do that in Kali ".  There are even times I say "he we do that in both WC and Kali." It is inevitable.



No, the problem is that someone is clearly doing kickboxing and a TMA practitioner attempts to counter saying that they're really doing their traditional MA. In actuality, that person really IS just doing kickboxing. Which makes sense btw, since they're trying to last more than 10 seconds in a fight.

Observe this video;






That guy was clearly doing Wing Chun.

If despite all the forms, weapons, and concepts the end result of your fighting style is looking like a kick boxer, why not just save the time and train in kickboxing?


----------



## geezer (Jun 16, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> That guy was clearly doing Wing Chun. If despite all the forms, weapons, and concepts the end result of your fighting style is looking like a kick boxer, why not just save the time and train in kickboxing?



No, that guy was _posing like Donnie Yen _in a movie, and then getting taken down. I didn't see any Wing Chun. He might have been planning on doing WC, but it never happened.

Now about what Alan Orr's guys do... He uses a lot of WC fighting concepts but he is training MMA fighters to compete in MMA. So of course that shows. Alan gets the same flack from WC purists as he does from you, and he's answered it. No point in repeating it. You either don't understand or don't accept his arguments. Personally I don't care. 

I _am_ interested to see where he goes with his stuff and how far he gets.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> No, that guy was _posing like Donnie Yen _in a movie, and then getting taken down. I didn't see any Wing Chun. He might have been planning on doing WC, but it never happened.



He wasn't utilizing this WC stance?







This is part of my problem with this argument; Now we're saying that clear WC techniques aren't "real" WC techniques because a WC practitioner got stomped in a MMA bout?



> Now about what Alan Orr's guys do... He uses a lot of WC fighting concepts but he is training MMA fighters to compete in MMA. So of course that shows. Alan gets the same flack from WC purists as he does from you, and he's answered it. No point in repeating it. You either don't understand or don't accept his arguments. Personally I don't care.
> 
> I _am_ interested to see where he goes with his stuff and how far he gets.



Well if the argument is that he's using WC concepts, I simply don't buy his argument, because his fighters aren't doing anything different than what other fighters are doing.

For example, Kron Gracie says that he uses mainly Bjj in his fights because he personally believes that Bjj can win a MMA fight with little else. How does he prove this? By doing Guard pulls and actively forcing and finishing fights from closed guard. This makes Kron's argument a far more believable than Orr's, because I can actually see the difference.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> No, the problem is that someone is clearly doing kickboxing and a TMA practitioner attempts to counter saying that they're really doing their traditional MA. In actuality, that person really IS just doing kickboxing. Which makes sense btw, since they're trying to last more than 10 seconds in a fight.
> 
> Observe this video;
> 
> ...



First, WC core concepts aren't defined by that stance anymore than Karate in practice is defined by 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Many traditional MA's have stances that are designed to teach fundamental concepts and to train specific muscle groups..  In WC's case (in the video you showed) what you see there is, relaxation (open hands) as well as protecting and attack from the center line.  Once you have the concepts down at a higher level you.  If you watch the video I posted again you will see one point where Izzo's student does a _tan_ but with some his fist his closed, in one his hand is open but is sideways, not pointed up.  It doesn't change the fact, in terms of function, it was a _tan_.

So it seems you miss the fact that multiple martial arts can throw a punch, trap a limb, do a take down or whatever, using the same body mechanics just calling it a different name.  So I can do a _fak sau_ (knife hand chop) but a Karate guy might say I did a _shuto_.  I can do a _biu jee/sau_ (finger thrust/spear hand) but the Taekwondo guy will say I did a _pyong son keut chigi_.  The same applies to punches.  A really traditional WC person may say that was a _yut_ the kick boxer would say that was a punch.  All that makes a _yut_ a _ yut_ is the punch is thrown elbow down with fingers vertical and along the centerline.

Ultimately the stance isn't the point here, the point is looking at individual techniques and recognizing that due to basic body mechanics individual techniques are often shared by multiple fighting systems.  This is a simple fact.  As @geezer said this guy, along with the guy I posted a video of, Izzo, catch heat from WC "purists" because they focus more on the foundational principles more than exacting execution of specific techniques.


----------



## guy b (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  I some people aren't a fan of this guy, he is an opinionated loud mouth, but at least he admits to being an opinionated loud mouth lol.  However like him or hate him, say what he does is or is not "real" WC, but his methods work as evidenced by the fact you can actually find newspaper articles of him getting awards from his PD for disarming knife wielding suspects and the like.   I definitely shares this attitude regarding advanced application.
> 
> It starts to get to the point at about 3:00 though earlier he makes a good point that most of what one may call techniques in WC are, when you break em down, essentially using the same forwarding energy principles of a punch (but that's not really relevant to this conversation.) Never studied with him myself but it makes a lot of sense from my perspective, which is admittedly street application and not MMA.  It is kinda long, even starting at 3:00 but the idea that it doesn't have to look pretty once you have gotten past the learning phase is made throughout in addition to his basic philosophy of fighting.



Is it the return of Izzo?


----------



## guy b (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Well if the argument is that he's using WC concepts, I simply don't buy his argument, because his fighters aren't doing anything different than what other fighters are doing.



I don't see VT concepts in what Alan Orr does. There is reference to things like "force flow", but it is difficult to know what these are supposed to be


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> Is it the return of Izzo?



His WC isn't "clean" I will grant that and he is arrogant as all hell as well.  However in terms of actual real world combatives; how fights start in real life, the effects of a real world environment (confined spaces, stairs etc), how various strikes you may encounter actually behave are VERY accurate, as is, imo, his conclusions based on these things in terms of overall tactics are pretty spot on.  In terms of how punches behave I usually use the hook punch to the head as you close in as an example.  Some people (maybe not you) think a simple _tan_ will stop it.  However that 1. Can take your arm too far off center and 2. Even then, due to the curved nature of the arm you can still eat the punch.


----------



## KPM (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> I'm forced to agree with Drop Bear. If Orr had only trained in WC, and actually looked like a WC fighter when he fights in MMA, I could buy what he's selling. The problem is that when he fights he looks like a generic MMA fighter who learned MMA.
> 
> To see the opposite of this check out guys like Machida, A. Silva, Ryan Hall, Holdsworth, Rousey and Kron Gracie who are all using very distinct MA styles within MMA.




How are those examples "opposite" of what Alan Orr is doing?   Machida....follow footage as his career progressed and you see less and less obvious Karate and more and more obvious MMA.   Same with Rousey.  Sure she uses Judo, but so do a lot of people in MMA. I think its a matter of percentages.  What percentage of time does the person depart from "typical" MMA?   How often does Machida do a "picture perfect" Karate kick and how often does Rousey do a "picture perfect" Judo throw?   Same applies to Alan Orr's guys.  How often do they do "picture perfect" Wing Chun punches up the centerline, or a Tan Sau with gloves on?  It is what it is.  Most come to the MMA game with some kind of background, but its all still MMA when the bell rings.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First, WC core concepts aren't defined by that stance anymore than Karate in practice is defined by
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except that Machida for example DOES utilize Karate stances, footwork and strikes within MMA. You can see him do it, and it's very distinct because it's way different than what you typically see in MMA.  Thus you can't say that at the highest levels everything looks the same.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> How are those examples "opposite" of what Alan Orr is doing?   Machida....follow footage as his career progressed and you see less and less obvious Karate and more and more obvious MMA.   Same with Rousey.  Sure she uses Judo, but so do a lot of people in MMA. I think its a matter of percentages.  What percentage of time does the person depart from "typical" MMA?   How often does Machida do a "picture perfect" Karate kick and how often does Rousey do a "picture perfect" Judo throw?   Same applies to Alan Orr's guys.  How often do they do "picture perfect" Wing Chun punches up the centerline, or a Tan Sau with gloves on?  It is what it is.  Most come to the MMA game with some kind of background, but its all still MMA when the bell rings.



Really? I saw his last fight against Weidman and he was still utilizing his trademark karate footwork and striking ability. Rousey was still doing obvious Judo throws until she decided that she wanted to start trying to out box kick boxers.

It's not about being picture perfect. It's about doing something that is clearly not the norm. Alan Orr's guys are indistinguishable from your typical MMA fighter. In fact, if you never told me that those guys were doing WC, I wouldn't know it.  On the other hand, if you watched Rousey or Shinya Aoki , it was very clear that their grappling base was way different than the norm. The same applies to Anderson Silva who applied boxing style evasion alongside Muay Thai clinching to create a distinct striking style.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Except that Machida for example DOES utilize Karate stances, footwork and strikes within MMA. You can see him do it, and it's very distinct because it's way different than what you typically see in MMA.  Thus you can't say that at the highest levels everything looks the same.



First, the punches shown in the video do adhere in large part to WC punches as the elbows are down and the knuckles are stacked vertically. Also, technically, so long as you can strike equally with both fists, you are doing a WC straight punch.  You are the one who quibbled over the "stance." Well Machida doesn't take a "Karate" stance.  So you not only are ignoring the physics of a punch but also applying a double standard.

Second Machida definitely bounces around on his toes, not as much as others but he does it. He also does more than a little bobbing and weaving. That certainly isn't part of Karate footwork.  What screams Karate in this?







Lastly you are ignoring completely the point I made regarding how If you only see a particular technique thrown (in the examples a knife hand and a spear hand), two people studying different MAs can look at it and see it as a technique from theirs because techniques are shared across many arts, the only difference being terminology.  This is a fact you keep ignoring rather religiously as a matter of fact.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

Fox sports did an excellent breakdown of Machida's style;

Breaking Down Lyoto Machida's Karate Style

Additionally there's the famous Machida crane kick that knocked out Randy Couture.

The point is that a fighter with a distinctive base should have aspects of that distinctness emerge when they fight. That isn't the case with Orr or his students.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Fox sports did an excellent breakdown of Machida's style;
> 
> Breaking Down Lyoto Machida's Karate Style
> 
> ...



And again you ignoring inconvenient key points made by more than one person and changing your argument.  First it was "I see WC".  When the principles and some techniques of WC are explained and it's clear you could call it WC now you are moving the goal post to distinctive.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> And again you ignoring inconvenient key points made by more than one person and changing your argument.  First it was "I see WC".  When the principles and some techniques of WC are explained and it's clear you could call it WC now you are moving the goal post to distinctive.



Uh, where did I change my argument?

I said in the beginning that I don't see the WC in what Orr is doing, and I still don't see the WC in what Orr is doing. My point with bringing up Machida is that I CAN see the karate elements in his fighting style, and clearly others can too, which is why a major media hub published a lengthy article about it. His karate influence is obvious to anyone watching him fight, and that is NOT the case when we talk about Orr.

Further I recognize your key points, but those points are invalidated by the examples I posted. You can't say that in the end everything looks alike when we have very clear examples of fighters from unique MA bases looking unique at the highest level of combat sports.

That's the point.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Uh, where did I change my argument?
> 
> I said in the beginning that I don't see the WC in what Orr is doing, and I still don't see the WC in what Orr is doing. My point with bringing up Machida is that I CAN see the karate elements in his fighting style, and clearly others can too, which is why a major media hub published a lengthy article about it. His karate influence is obvious to anyone watching him fight, and that is NOT the case when we talk about Orr.
> 
> ...



As has been pointed out to you _ad nauseum_, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. You're not exactly an expert.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> As has been pointed out to you _ad nauseum_, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. You're not exactly an expert.



Uh, I'm not the only one not seeing it, as this thread and other threads about Orr have made abundantly clear.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Uh, I'm not the only one not seeing it, as this thread and other threads about Orr have made abundantly clear.


 
Yes and those comments are based on a few things.
1. Wing Chun purists who hate that he is mixing it with MMA
2. People who don't understand that idea of a conceptual MA and ignore the fact that multiple martial arts share the same techniques.
3. People who think, that to say a particular Martial art is involved it also needs to be somehow distinct in appearance, because they don't get point 2.

So basically prejudice and ignorance.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Yes and those comments are based on a few things.
> 1. Wing Chun purists who hate that he is mixing it with MMA
> 2. People who don't understand that idea of a conceptual MA and ignore the fact that multiple martial arts share the same techniques.
> 3. People who think, that to say a particular Martial art is involved it also needs to be somehow distinct in appearance, because they don't get point 2.
> ...



What a bunch of nonsense.

Wasn't karate one of your "conceptual MAs" as well? Then how do you explain Machida looking like a distinct fighter while utilizing a "conceptual MA"? You spent several posts trying to peg Machida as looking similar to other MMA fighters, even going so far as to showing a brief clip asking "where's the karate" in Machida's fighting style. So in kind I posted a lengthy article describing exactly how Machida utilizes recognizable karate within MMA and you completely ignored it.

Don't you find it a little strange that everyone "understands" that Machida is utilizing karate in MMA, yet for some reason the vast majority of observers see little to no WC from Orr including WC practitioners themselves?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 17, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Fox sports did an excellent breakdown of Machida's style;
> 
> Breaking Down Lyoto Machida's Karate Style
> 
> ...



Wing chun does not really have distinctive properties?

Change the stance,abandon the overuse of hand trapping,add in head movement and more than one punch and you basically have amateur boxing.

Which is all centreline,speedy punches and tight elbows.





Surprise surprise Australia got mauled in boxing by Cuba.


----------



## guy b (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> People who don't understand that idea of a conceptual MA and ignore the fact that multiple martial arts share the same techniques.



The problem with Alan Orr's team is that the VT conceptual base is not there.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> The problem with Alan Orr's team is that the VT conceptual base is not there.



Is VT essentially one focused element of boxing though? 

That seems to be the impression I get. That they have isolated 1 fighting style and method.

I mean straight punches work. Getting good angles works. Counter punches work. Punches in bunches works. Even hand trapping works.

But then they seem to focus inwards. More punches,more straight line,every punch has to be a counter punch and so on. And it is that focus that makes VT.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> The problem with Alan Orr's team is that the VT conceptual base is not there.



I think we have gone around that bush to the point of dizziness in another thread.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> The problem with Alan Orr's team is that the VT conceptual base is not there.


This is because no one can agree on what exactly is the base of Wing Chun. Everyone has their own interpretation, as evidenced by the many arguments on internet forums about what is correct & what isn't. IMO Allen Orr is using loose (some will say loosely interpretated) concepts of WC principles to augment his developed MMA style. Does this make it WC or is it simply implementation of WC strategy augmented by some key techniques? It's all a matter of one's perspective. Personally I could care less about others beliefs as long as they don't try to force them upon me.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> This is because no one can agree on what exactly is the base of Wing Chun. Everyone has their own interpretation, as evidenced by the many arguments on internet forums about what is correct & what isn't. IMO Allen Orr is using loose (some will say loosely interpretated) concepts of WC principles to augment his developed MMA style. Does this make it WC or is it simply implementation of WC strategy augmented by some key techniques? It's all a matter of one's perspective. Personally I could care less about others beliefs as long as they don't try to force them upon me.



Gosh I wish other people had the patience to read the other thread, it is basically emblematic of society at large.  Some people say "it's a concept" and use the dictionary definition, an abstract idea with a foundation.  Others say it's a concept BUT if a particular technique isn't used in  particular manner they lose their minds and the same dynamic rose here.


----------



## Steve (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Gosh I wish other people had the patience to read the other thread, it is basically emblematic of society at large.  Some people say "it's a concept" and use the dictionary definition, an abstract idea with a foundation.  Others say it's a concept BUT if a particular technique isn't used in  particular manner they lose their minds and the same dynamic rose here.


No problem, as long as they don't move the goal post.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> No problem, as long as they don't move the goal post.


gotta admit.  made me chuckle.


----------



## anerlich (Jun 20, 2016)

Personally, I can only see some useful parallels between WC and grappling arts after spending considerable time training both.

When I took up BJJ, I tried to relate everything back to Wing Chun, which maybe helped a little up to my first couple of stripes on my white belt. After that, trying to see everything in BJJ through Wing Chun coloured glasses didn't help any more, it just got in the way.

I get a few "oh, yeah, that's like section X in SLT" moments, but I see these as like curiosities only someone with a similar background as me could appreciate. And they have little if any practical use in becoming a better grappler. Opinions vary, but this is mine.

The search for a unified theory of fighting is a fool's quest IMO.

I don't have a problem with Alan's diction. My own tones are not dulcet by any stretch. Are yours?

I've been reading Hendrik Santo's posts on various topics for about twenty years and can't see all the force flow stuff having any more substance than anything else he has written. I've trained hard with some very skilled people with proven track records in WC, BJJ and MMA and can't see that any of this secret handshake stuff is going to help me improve anything.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 20, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Personally, I can only see some useful parallels between WC and grappling arts after spending considerable time training both.
> 
> When I took up BJJ, I tried to relate everything back to Wing Chun, which maybe helped a little up to my first couple of stripes on my white belt. After that, trying to see everything in BJJ through Wing Chun coloured glasses didn't help any more, it just got in the way.
> 
> ...



I think the first sentence illustrates the issue though. Most  of the conversation regarding similarities is regarding centerline theory and the execution of striking principles.  The only time I think one would be able to relate WC principles to grappling arts, with any consistency at least, would be say in take downs that involve a strike like transfer of energy.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I think the first sentence illustrates the issue though. Most  of the conversation regarding similarities is regarding centerline theory and the execution of striking principles.  The only time I think one would be able to relate WC principles to grappling arts, with any consistency at least, would be say in take downs that involve a strike like transfer of energy.



Lat edit @anerlich : I also think that  WC is mentioned repeatedly in the video something else is missed.  The idea of centerline theory, as it is explained and focused on in WC, may seem unique but many of the applications aren't.  Other arts use punches that are similar to the WC punch (a straight punch, elbow down, knuckles verticals) they just also use other punches as well.  Other arts use knife hands, finger thrusts, etc, they just use different nomenclature.  I think some of what's going on here is what has always gone on in MMA.  A practitioner is applying the techniques, and nomenclature, of an art he knows to MMA but the nomenclature is creating points of conflict because of the following (not this is striking v striking and grappling v grappling)

1. If your point of reference is say Kick Boxing, Karate etc. you may see a technique only in the light of that point of reference and say "oh that's not WC that's kick boxing.
--- if your only point of reference to the other art, in this case WC, is the stances used in training or in kung Fu movies, it can make this denial even more firm.
2. Some people simply have a prejudice against particular arts and this exacerbates point 1.
3. Some people have a belief in the "purity" of a traditional martial art.  This concept of purity will have them say "that isn't WC" the minute the principles and applications are combined into an alternative stance, or when used in conjunction with other applications or principles.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 21, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Uh, where did I change my argument?
> 
> I said in the beginning that I don't see the WC in what Orr is doing, and I still don't see the WC in what Orr is doing. My point with bringing up Machida is that I CAN see the karate elements in his fighting style, and clearly others can too, which is why a major media hub published a lengthy article about it. His karate influence is obvious to anyone watching him fight, and that is NOT the case when we talk about Orr.
> 
> ...


You dont understand anything Alan is doing.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 21, 2016)

I failed to address some points.


Hanzou said:


> Uh, where did I change my argument?



I suppose it is possible you simply did not articulate your point well.  First you simply said "I don't see WC, I see kick boxing." I explain how frame of reference can influence said perceptions, how a WC guy, a Karate guy and a TKD guy (or girl of course) can all see the same technique and see it as something from "their" art.  You studiously ignored this point and then starting posting photos and videos of a training/Donnie Yen perfect stance, and started talking about "distinctive" features. 

The fact you don't see WC in what Orr is teaching is, tbh, because you can't accept the idea that most, if not all striking arts, share more than a few techniques, they simply explain them with different terminology and FB this is likely compounded by the fact that you simply don't know enough about WC, to be able to be able to see that while you say a punch looks like kick boxing it is also consistent with WC.  What you see in a Donnie Yen Movie, or with students in a training/sparring scenario bears very little resemblance (stance wise) to WC in a real fight.  It is little different than the Karate stance I posted in terms of real fighting. So when you move to the "distinctive" argument it's operating on a false premise.



> ...I said in the beginning that I don't see the WC in what Orr is doing, and I still don't see the WC in what Orr is doing. My point with bringing up Machida is that I CAN see the karate elements in his fighting style, and clearly others can too, which is why a major media hub published a lengthy article about it. His karate influence is obvious to anyone watching him fight, and that is NOT the case when we talk about Orr.



The problem is not everything between different Martial Arts is distinctive in traditional martial arts, even the footwork that you see Machida uses in MMA is NOT distinctive to Karate.  The way he stands in a semi bladed stance is actually consistent with not only WC, but kick boxing, Savate, TKD and other arts.  The manner in which this stance allows him to retreat under the threat of being overwhelmed is also consistent with these arts.  You miss something rather important, because you ignored this fact when I broached it before you raised Machida as an examlle, people simply attribute it to Karate because a point of reference.  This point of reference was created because Machida is quite open about how he trained in Karate and integrated it into his MMA.



> Further I recognize your key points, but those points are invalidated by the examples I posted.



Actually they are quite relevant if you re not walking in the door with a clearly preconceived notion written in the metaphorical stone of your mind.



> You can't say that in the end everything looks alike when we have very clear examples of fighters from unique MA bases looking unique at the highest level of combat sports.



The problem is that the things you are noting as "unique" aren't really.  As I said Machida, just as an example, is seen as performing Karate because he studies Karate and says it's Karate but other martial artists would not see something alien to them in what he does.



Hanzou said:


> Wasn't karate one of your "conceptual MAs" as well? Then how do you explain Machida looking like a distinct fighter while utilizing a "conceptual MA"? You spent several posts trying to peg Machida as looking similar to other MMA fighters,



First indeed it is.  The best way I have ever seen Bukai described has been...

"The first, _kihon_ bunkai, is basic. Everybody does the movement exactly the same way. It’s like learning _kata.  _The second is _oyo _bunkai. It refers to varying the movement according to your body size. The third, _renzoku_ bunkai, entails a continuous action whereby you do one technique, then your opponent executes a different one. It’s almost like fighting. It’s a gradual progression, almost a free exercise, but it’s not sparring.  After this you then move to sparring and then to actual fighting.  The first four steps are simply the training necessary to prepare you for the reality of the last."

That said I NEVER said that Machida looked like other MMA fighters.  That is you projecting because you are routinely focused, quite myopically, on MMA.  What I said is that traditional martial arts practitioners can look at different fighters performing different techniques and, without clear statements from the fighter saying "I study Karate" al la Machida, "...Muay Thai" al la Carano or "...Judo" al la Rousey, they will see particular techniques from their frame of reference(s).  Just as a few brief and hardly expansive examples, the Judoka and the Daito-Jujutsu practitioner can see the same take down, a WC practitioner Kick Boxer can see the same punch, the Karate and TKD practitioner can see the same kick.  If they are all ignorant of the particular fighters frame of reference, they can identify the technique as being consistent with their personal frame reference and none of them would be wrong.

The fact that you can't see this and are instead fixated on appearance, followed by explicit statements of the fighter involved, says a lot more about your understanding of Martial Arts than anything else.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 21, 2016)

Attention all residents of Wonderland! Alice is approaching the rabbit hole followed by the Queen of Hearts, Cheshire Cat & The Mad Hatter. Enter at your own risk.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 21, 2016)

You guys do not understand how CSL wing chun works at all so how can you say we do not use CSL wing chun in MMA. So many people can talk yet noone here can even post a video sparring to show they use wing chun in the way they are going on and on about.


----------



## geezer (Jun 21, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> You guys do not understand how CSL wing chun works at all so how can you say we do not use CSL wing chun in MMA. So many people can talk yet noone here can even post a video sparring to show they use wing chun in the way they are going on and on about.



No need to let _Hanzou_ get your goat. He is to BJJ what LFJ and Guy B are to WSL-VT. ....namely a "true-believer". No point in arguing with people whose minds are already made up. 

Significantly, the majority of people posting have had very positive things to say about Alan Orr's WC. 

BTW --you wouldn't have any of your _own_ WC sparring videos to discuss? I'd be really interested. Don't have any of myself.  Which is just as well. Really!


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 21, 2016)

Wing Chun has a stigma attached to it. When it's principles &  concepts have been changed to the point of generic relativity, and techniques, as well as methodology, from other arts are incorporated, is it still Wing Chun? Or is it something new based upon an idea of personal interpretation? For Wing Chun to be classified as Wing Chun there has to be a general consensus from the Wing Chun community at large as to what actually constitutes as Wing Chun. Personally; even though some concepts, some techniques and principles may be present. If the structural foundation and function of the art is modified beyond recognition, it's not Wing Chun anymore. It's something new inspired by Wing Chun. Breeding a horse with a donkey doesn't make a horse, no matter how similar outwardly they may appear.


----------



## KPM (Jun 21, 2016)

^^^^ I know others disagree, but I still like the analogy of an "engine" as indicating an arts core biomechanics and way of generating power.  Each art has  distinctive "engine."  If you start changing the engine, then you are changing the core of the art and it is something different.  This is why, even though JKD has a lot of the same techniques and concepts as Wing Chun, it isn't Wing Chun because it has a different "engine" or core biomechanic.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 21, 2016)

For the record I applaud what Allen Orr & Robert Chu have achieved with their CSL Wing Chun. I, personally, can clearly see some concepts & principles of Wing Chun being applied. That being said, I will hesitate to call what they do Wing Chun. On the basis that the forms they practice are really no different, mechanically from any other branch stemming from Yip Man that I see. Most of the drills are similar, but application wise, they use a completely different engine that is often contradictory to what is used in the forms. This is a case of putting a dress & lipstick on a pig and saying that it's your aunt Mabel. Though it may look like your aunt Mabel, it clearly isn't. Conceptually it's too loosely interpretated to be classified as Wing Chun, as generally accepted by the larger community. This isn't to say it isn't effective, they have proven otherwise. But there are also many other concepts from other styles incorporated. To such a degree that the structural foundation of classical Wing Chun has been severely altered. I am in no position to say if this is better or worse, but it is very evident that it is different at a fundamental level. This adaptation is no doubt a result of the environment it was fostered in. It is evolving beyond the accepted identity of Wing Chun and should be classified as a new system just as JKD is. Trying to find commonality with other arts to the degree that the concepts, principles and mechanics have to be altered to fit in order to comply, deviates too far from the core to be accepted uncontested IMO.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 21, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> For the record I applaud what Allen Orr & Robert Chu have achieved with their CSL Wing Chun. I, personally, can clearly see some concepts & principles of Wing Chun being applied. That being said, I will hesitate to call what they do Wing Chun. On the basis that the forms they practice are really no different, mechanically from any other branch stemming from Yip Man that I see. Most of the drills are similar, but application wise, they use a completely different engine that is often contradictory to what is used in the forms. This is a case of putting a dress & lipstick on a pig and saying that it's your aunt Mabel. Though it may look like your aunt Mabel, it clearly isn't. Conceptually it's too loosely interpretated to be classified as Wing Chun, as generally accepted by the larger community. This isn't to say it isn't effective, they have proven otherwise. But there are also many other concepts from other styles incorporated. To such a degree that the structural foundation of classical Wing Chun has been severely altered. I am in no position to say if this is better or worse, but it is very evident that it is different at a fundamental level. This adaptation is no doubt a result of the environment it was fostered in. It is evolving beyond the accepted identity of Wing Chun and should be classified as a new system just as JKD is. Trying to find commonality with other arts to the degree that the concepts, principles and mechanics have to be altered to fit in order to comply, deviates too far from the core to be accepted uncontested IMO.



I was thinking the JKD angle myself.  Here we see Don Inosanto saying "Wing Chun is part of Jeet Kun Do.  I think you have to have it, to understand Jeet Kun Do."






Now the rest of the video is iffy, because it neglects that WC is not only a close range art BUT I can excuse that because Dan's biggest influence regarding WC was Lee and Lee moved to the US when he was like 15 or something so his formal schooling under YM's school did end very early so his knowledge of the system was likely incomplete.  Further evidence of this is Lee attesting that WC was largely immobile.  Clearly we have A LOT of footwork.


----------



## geezer (Jun 21, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> ...there has to be a *general consensus from the Wing Chun community* at large as to what actually constitutes as Wing Chun.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 21, 2016)

geezer said:


>


You must keep the faith Geezer! We're all counting on you to set the example and lead us lost sheep to the promised land.


----------



## anerlich (Jun 22, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> It is evolving beyond the accepted identity of Wing Chun and should be classified as a new system just as JKD is..



Nah. It's MMA with a Wing Chun base. It seems to work for Alan and his students.

I think Alan is stretching limits trying to fit everything he does as included in WC. A tan sao is not an underhook IMO. Or not all the time, anyway.


----------



## anerlich (Jun 22, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> You guys do not understand how CSL wing chun works at all so how can you say we do not use CSL wing chun in MMA. So many people can talk yet noone here can even post a video sparring to show they use wing chun in the way they are going on and on about.



I've seen Alan's Wing Chun NHB vids so I have some idea of his approach. I haven't followed the later force flow stuff, as the fifteen or so of Hendrik's 500 thirty minute videos on the subject that I've seen are unconvincing, as are most of his sycophants' or former sycophants' video demonstrations. Could I be wrong? Maybe. Is it worth a trip to the US to find out? No.

At 61 and with about $50,000 of dental work I don't wish to place at risk any time soon, I'm not going to make you a combat video. However, my instructor had 37 pro kickboxing matches back in the 70's and 80's and retired undefeated after a car accident. One of his instructor level students, Nick Ariel, has held a WKA kickboxing title (he might still hold it for all I know). Students from our Sydney and Ulverstone, Tasmania branches have competed successfully in kickboxing, BJJ, and MMA, including females. Just last weekend one of our Tasmanian MMA fighters won a cage fight and a belt. And all this has been accomplished without force flow.

My instructor doesn't have the same internet presence as Alan and Robert. Alan deserves kudos and respect, but he's not the only WC instructor having successes in combat sports. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Nah. It's MMA with a Wing Chun base. It seems to work for Alan and his students.
> 
> I think Alan is stretching limits trying to fit everything he does as included in WC. A tan sao is not an underhook IMO. Or not all the time, anyway.


Agree, in reality that is what it is. They are trying to pass it off as Wing Chun. Not just Wing Chun but ancient, original Wing Chun with all this force flow, 7 bows, 6 core principles , 13 whatever etc. I don't see the cohesiveness. When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable. Their forms contain the same principles that are expressed in their applications and drills. With Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun their forms do not express the same mechanics as found in their drills & applications. It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
I agree that he is trying to associate everything as WC, it's over-generalized. His right to call it what he wants, it works for them, but too much has been reworked, renamed and modified to call it Wing Chun proper IMO.


----------



## Eric_H (Jun 22, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable.



Maybe you can tell me how "modified" what I study is, being it doesn't have anything to do with yip man's wing chun. Who exactly is modifying it and from what?


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> I've seen Alan's Wing Chun NHB vids so I have some idea of his approach. I haven't followed the later force flow stuff, as the fifteen or so of Hendrik's 500 thirty minute videos on the subject that I've seen are unconvincing, as are most of his sycophants' or former sycophants' video demonstrations. Could I be wrong? Maybe. Is it worth a trip to the US to find out? No.
> 
> At 61 and with about $50,000 of dental work I don't wish to place at risk any time soon, I'm not going to make you a combat video. However, my instructor had 37 pro kickboxing matches back in the 70's and 80's and retired undefeated after a car accident. One of his instructor level students, Nick Ariel, has held a WKA kickboxing title (he might still hold it for all I know). Students from our Sydney and Ulverstone, Tasmania branches have competed successfully in kickboxing, BJJ, and MMA, including females. Just last weekend one of our Tasmanian MMA fighters won a cage fight and a belt. And all this has been accomplished without force flow.
> 
> My instructor doesn't have the same internet presence as Alan and Robert. Alan deserves kudos and respect, but he's not the only WC instructor having successes in combat sports. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.



I haven't watched hendriks videos apart from a few for a couple of minutes. That NHB stuff is the basics of CSL though. Im talking about Alan and CSL not Hendrik with Yik Kam.

Does your teacher happen to have any videos at all of the fights uploaded? Just curious to watch. Not asking for people to personally make one to please me, just some people talk and talk and talk but prove nothing. Much respect to anyone who will fight in a cage or any sort of tourney. 

If people are looking at the CSL fights with the point of view of their lineage.. then ofcourse you wont see your idea of wing chun being applied. I would like to see people's wing chun come out against any of them.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 22, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> Agree, in reality that is what it is. They are trying to pass it off as Wing Chun. Not just Wing Chun but ancient, original Wing Chun with all this force flow, 7 bows, 6 core principles , 13 whatever etc. I don't see the cohesiveness. When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable. Their forms contain the same principles that are expressed in their applications and drills. With Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun their forms do not express the same mechanics as found in their drills & applications. It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
> I agree that he is trying to associate everything as WC, it's over-generalized. His right to call it what he wants, it works for them, but too much has been reworked, renamed and modified to call it Wing Chun proper IMO.



I really do not agree with that at all as someone who actually learns from Alan in person. Why do you guys think the 10% of CSL he shows online is the whole system? Everyone who comments on CSL acts like they know everything about it.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 22, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Maybe you can tell me how "modified" what I study is, being it doesn't have anything to do with yip man's wing chun. Who exactly is modifying it and from what?


This isn't meant as an insult to your lineage, though you may perceive it to be so. I have nothing against HFY, what I have seen of it I like. That being said, nothing in HFY can be substantiated beyond Garrett Gee. Forgive me for being suspicious, but the entire background is extremely suspect. Until HFY can be vetted it will continue to be scrutinized. Can that be accepted as fair?


----------



## anerlich (Jun 22, 2016)

Can't find a vid off the top of my head but here's and article about the recent match.

Ethan Duniam wins rematch with Jesse Medina at Minotaur 4


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 22, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I really do not agree with that at all as someone who actually learns from Alan in person. Why do you guys think the 10% of CSL he shows online is the whole system? Everyone who comments on CSL acts like they know everything about it.


I'm sure there is more. But association with the likes of Hendrik Santos has its own misgivings. Terms like force flow, 6 Core Principles, 7 Bows etc. are terms created & engineered by Hendrik, they are not terms used in any branch beyond those associated with him. They are not concepts or principles indigenous to Wing Chun. They are recent inventions that have heavily altered the manner in which the art is performed and utilized. I never said this was a bad thing. Mr. Orr has proven that his method has merit. It doesn't mean that it's 100% "Original Wing Chun" when it contradicts the long established traditions of many other branches that go back for generations. Again I see nothing wrong with the method as far as its usefulness. IMO I simply don't view it as 100% Wing Chun, let alone "Original" or "Ancient" in methodology.


----------



## anerlich (Jun 22, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Why do you guys think the 10% of CSL he shows online is the whole system? Everyone who comments on CSL acts like they know everything about it.



I don't know everything about CSL WC or what Alan does. I do know about tan saos and underhooks and do not agree with Alan's analysis on the vid implying strong similarities between them. It's not a complete analysis and if he went into it in more detail on the vid or we discussed it I might well end up agreeing with a more complete picture of his ideas.

If a video gets posted it's legitimate for others to give their impressions of what's presented. The video is about MMA as much as it is about CSLWC. If it was ALL WC, there would have been no need for Alan to pursue BJJ and obtain a black belt or train wrestling, etc.


----------



## KPM (Jun 22, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
> .




I think if you saw Robert Chu in action you would get a different impression.  Robert doesn't do MMA.  But Robert doesn't post videos.


----------



## KPM (Jun 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Nah. It's MMA with a Wing Chun base. It seems to work for Alan and his students.
> 
> .



If you guys recall, I caught all kinds of hell for saying that on the "other" forum a few years back!


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 22, 2016)

KPM said:


> I think if you saw Robert Chu in action you would get a different impression.  Robert doesn't do MMA.  But Robert doesn't post videos.


I have, that is why I made the comment that the forms for CSLWC look contradictory to how it is applied. Though I may see some concepts of WC in what Allen Orr does , I don't see the system as a whole when it's applied, just bits & bobs. Perhaps that is my ignorance, but more than likely it's because Mr. Orr has augmented his WC with other material like Boxing & BJJ. I have to agree with Anerlich it's MMA with Wing Chun base. Nothing wrong with that, but to call it 100% WC, would be like saying I practice Tae Kwon Do but apply it like Judo because it is Judo. Just because there may be some overlap in some aspects doesn't mean it's the same thing.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 22, 2016)

KPM said:


> If you guys recall, I caught all kinds of hell for saying that on the "other" forum a few years back!


Let it go, let it go.....in my best Elsa voice


----------



## Eric_H (Jun 22, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> This isn't meant as an insult to your lineage, though you may perceive it to be so. I have nothing against HFY, what I have seen of it I like. That being said, nothing in HFY can be substantiated beyond Garrett Gee. Forgive me for being suspicious, but the entire background is extremely suspect. Until HFY can be vetted it will continue to be scrutinized. Can that be accepted as fair?



That's totally fair.


----------



## Eric_H (Jun 22, 2016)

KPM said:


> If you guys recall, I caught all kinds of hell for saying that on the "other" forum a few years back!



There's a great need for sand picking machines over there. Personally, I think the success Alan and his folks are having is great. It's just not all WC. It's more of their own brand of JKD. Teachers have been making personal versions/variations of their styles for centuries that blend other stuff, it's nothing new, and nothing wrong with it. It's just not "pure" WC and shouldn't be represented as such IMO.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 23, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> Agree, in reality that is what it is. They are trying to pass it off as Wing Chun. Not just Wing Chun but ancient, original Wing Chun with all this force flow, 7 bows, 6 core principles , 13 whatever etc. I don't see the cohesiveness. When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable. Their forms contain the same principles that are expressed in their applications and drills. With Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun their forms do not express the same mechanics as found in their drills & applications. It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
> I agree that he is trying to associate everything as WC, it's over-generalized. His right to call it what he wants, it works for them, but too much has been reworked, renamed and modified to call it Wing Chun proper IMO.



Ummm you make a few contradictions here... especially if we return to the "concept" thread.

1.  WC is, with your agreement, a conceptual art.
2.  WC has multiple Lineages that predate Yip Man and "his" WC
3.  The only evidence we have of Yip Man's WC out side of debates of his students are videos of an almost 90 year old man literally on his death bed, suffering the pain of stage 4 cancer.

Thus how can you, with anything resembling proof say who does and who does not teach a modified form and can you even have a modified form of a conceptual art so long as the foundational principles are adhered to?

PS just referring to the "modified" WC comment of specific people.  It seems to contradict.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Ummm you make a few contradictions here... especially if we return to the "concept" thread.
> 
> 1.  WC is, with your agreement, a conceptual art.
> 2.  WC has multiple Lineages that predate Yip Man and "his" WC
> ...


I do not disagree with your number list, but it isn't so cut & dry.

The use of modified, was not meant as an insult. The reference was towards William Cheung's version of WC, which we know is vastly different that that of his classmates. Towards HFY, which is different to verified branches that go back generations. I simply said they weren't vetted, not illegitimate. Chi Sim WC is known to have Hung Gar influence. Again modification, not illegitimate. They certainly are branches of WC as far as I am concerned, but they do have their share of controversy for good reasons.

In the thread on concept this is what I said.

"If the forms of Wing Chun were never created there wouldn't be a reference for the structure and movement of the art, because concept is impressionable, it is molded by the shape it is placed into. Hence, no shape, no litmus, no argument. Simply different interpretations of concept."

In the case of CSLWC, there are forms. Yet how Mr. Orr applies these techniques derived from the forms contradicts the structure and movement as found in their forms.  It's as if there are 2 different arts.

When you look at William Cheung, HFY or Chi Sim Wing Chun, their application of the art follows the same actions & principles as found in their form work. The same IMO does not hold true for how CSLWC is applied in the ring, it is modified beyond the codification as dictated by their form work. Nothing wrong with this, but I see it as a contradiction of how it can be called Wing Chun when it is applied in a manner not consistent with the structure defined within the forms. If their forms looked more like those of Andreas Hoffman, I couldn't make the same argument. I hope this clarify's my position.

For an art to be defined loose concept is not enough. There has to be a structural foundation upon which the concept is based, and this structural foundation has to be adhered to. This is because many arts share similar concepts, if they didn't have very specific ways of structure, moving & power generation. No one would be able to tell them apart. Ba Gua would look like Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do would look like Tai Chi. This isn't the case because each of these arts, though sharing many similar concepts, adhere to the framework that defines their arts.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 23, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> I do not disagree with your number list, but it isn't so cut & dry.
> 
> The use of modified, was not meant as an insult. The reference was towards William Cheung's version of WC, which we know is vastly different that that of his classmates. Towards HFY, which is different to verified branches that go back generations. I simply said they weren't vetted, not illegitimate. Chi Sim WC is known to have Hung Gar influence. Again modification, not illegitimate. They certainly are branches of WC as far as I am concerned, but they do have their share of controversy for good reasons.
> 
> ...



Even "not vetted" is a mess.  I am not saying that you are saying anything is illegitimate btw, only that using terms such as modified, vetted etc. go against the statement of a conceptual art.  That is a rabbit hole to be avoided.

Now this isn't to say Orr in the MMA videos is teaching pure WC. As I understand it he teaches one of the multitude of WC styles (in his case Chu Sau Lei WC) AND a style of MMA that integrates WC principles and some techniques but the two are different animals.  I think this difference is being lost.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Even "not vetted" is a mess.  I am not saying that you are saying anything is illegitimate btw, only that using terms such as modified, vetted etc. go against the statement of a conceptual art.  That is a rabbit hole to be avoided.
> 
> Now this isn't to say Orr in the MMA videos is teaching pure WC. As I understand it he teaches one of the multitude of WC styles (in his case Chu Sau Lei WC) AND a style of MMA that integrates WC principles and some techniques but the two are different animals.  I think this difference is being lost.


You are correct. But as far as I know, Mr. Chu & Mr. Orr do not make that differentiation. They claim it as simply Wing Chun. As you stated they are two different animals, I simply pointed that out. 

As stated previously, I do not think that other branches other than Yip Man are illegitimate. They have a right to the name as much as anyone. However, I do feel that there has to be a consistency in how an art is presented, played & applied. If one of these things swings wildly to the left of the others it throws up a flag to me.

I appreciate the oral traditions & histories of the many WC branches, but when claims of secret transmission, forgotten knowledge, lost lineages etc. pop up, but only go back as far as the individual making the claim, that throws up a flag too.

I know it's tradition to claim an ancestor for any innovations to an art, but thats a bit outdated in this day & age. If you make changes to your art, especially changes that elevate it & people's understanding of it, take credit for your work. Screw the "traditionalists" that look down upon it. Throughout the history of CMA masters borrowed, traded and stole stuff from several arts to either elevate old methods or create new ones.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 23, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> You are correct. But as far as I know, Mr. Chu & Mr. Orr do not make that differentiation. They claim it as simply Wing Chun. As you stated they are two different animals, I simply pointed that out.



Actually I think, at least Orr, kinda dodges the issue.  She  he teaches WC he says he teaches WC.  When asked if there is WC in the MMA he teaches he says yes.  That is different that saying they are the same.



> As stated previously, I do not think that other branches other than Yip Man are illegitimate. They have a right to the name as much as anyone. However, I do feel that there has to be a consistency in how an art is presented, played & applied. If one of these things swings wildly to the left of the others it throws up a flag to me.
> 
> I appreciate the oral traditions & histories of the many WC branches, but when claims of secret transmission, forgotten knowledge, lost lineages etc. pop up, but only go back as far as the individual making the claim, that throws up a flag too.
> 
> I know it's tradition to claim an ancestor for any innovations to an art, but thats a bit outdated in this day & age. If you make changes to your art, especially changes that elevate it & people's understanding of it, take credit for your work. Screw the "traditionalists" that look down upon it. Throughout the history of CMA masters borrowed, traded and stole stuff from several arts to either elevate old methods or create new ones.



I will just comment on the last bit.  Even Yip Man made exaggerations of his training to sell his school.  "This day in age" has different qualifiers and contexts to different people born in different decades and in different cultures.  As such it seems to be better to simply use the "duck" principle.  Remember that on the look part a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Looks different than a 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	












But they are both ducks so arguing over plumage just causes "issues" that are best avoided.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Actually I think, at least Orr, kinda dodges the issue.  She  he teaches WC he says he teaches WC.  When asked if there is WC in the MMA he teaches he says yes.  That is different that saying they are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. But being a discussion forum people will point out various things, it's kinda the whole point. Each of us will have an opinion, some will be more adamant than others, lol. The best we can hope for is to broaden our outlook and possibly learn a new perspective. We don't have to agree but should come to a mutual understanding to respect anothers opinion. BTW, I'm not Yip Man lineage, I'm Yuen family, we have enough of our own controversies I don't need anyone elses, lol.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Looks different than a
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, we don't want to ruffle any feathers


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 23, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> I agree. But being a discussion forum people will point out various things, it's kinda the whole point. Each of us will have an opinion, some will be more adamant than others, lol. The best we can hope for is to broaden our outlook and possibly learn a new perspective. We don't have to agree but should come to a mutual understanding to respect anothers opinion. BTW, I'm not Yip Man lineage, I'm Yuen family, we have enough of our own controversies I don't need anyone elses, lol.





yak sao said:


> Yes, we don't want to ruffle any feathers



Lol, for my part at least I have NO problem ruffling feathers, I just find that such ruffling being caused by a circular argument is simply an exercise in frustration and thus serves little purpose.


----------

