# Mixing WC and other styles?



## geezer (Feb 22, 2008)

Just ruminating on this old question after reading Kamon Guy's post about Sifu Kevin Chan's recent achievement of earning the coveted black belt rank in BJJ. Some traditionalists believe that if your WC/WT is really good, that is _all_ you need. Others mix in so many arts and approaches that even the JKD guys shake their heads. Anyone care to weigh in?


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 22, 2008)

As someone who practices a couple different systems, including Wing Chun, I'll give you my thoughts on it.

I do believe that if you are really proficient with any art, you probably don't need to study many different arts and mix them together.  This doesn't mean that every art contains every element of combat to an equal degree.  Far from it.  It is very obvious that most arts have a stylistic approach to combat which focuses on specific methods, altho elements of other methods may also exist within the system.  Meaning: an art that focuses heavily on striking and kicking as the favored approach may still contain some throwing and grappling and joint locking methods, altho they may not be as thoroughly developed as an art that focuses on these methods primarily.  But of course the second art may lack in the striking and kicking area.

However, if you gain true ability in any art, I believe that you ought to have the tools necessary to handle any kind of combative scenario.  Just make sure you fight YOUR fight, and don't let someone sucker you into fighting HIS fight.

As for myself, I practice several different arts simply out of curiosity.  I seem to be cursed with a never-ending perpetual curiosity and I just can't seem to help myself.  I find it fascinating to explore the different approaches to training in martial arts.  I do not practice different arts to plug "holes" in the system, so to speak.

That being said, I feel if you do practice more than one art, it is best to practice them separately from each other.  Different arts are built upon a certain base, which makes their specific techniques work.  If you try to graft those techs onto a different base from a different art, they often do not work as well or even fail miserably.  This is not always true of course, some things blend well, but in general I believe it holds water.

So practice them separately for what they have to offer individually.  Don't  mix them up and build a hodge-podge style of mix-and-match stuff that doesn't function well together.  But, if you ever need to actually use your skills in a fight, you can switch up your methods and use whatever is most appropriate under the circumstances.

As a side note, my martial origins are in Tracy kenpo.  Years later, when I was studying wing chun, I did find elements of my kenpo techs creeping into my chi sau practice.  It seemed to me that some of that material did in fact blend pretty naturally and efficiently.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2008)

Flying Crane pretty much covered it

Is it necessary? I would say no. If you train your chosen style like it is meant to be I do not see a reason

Can you combine arts? Yes if that is what you want. My only issue here is when someone combines 2 or 3 arts and continues to call it by one of those names when it is now something different.

Wing Chun + BJJ does not equal Wing Chun or BJJ
Taijiquan + Karate does not equal Taijiquan or Karate
BJJ + Muay Thai does not equal BJJ or Muay Thai > but it does equal MMA
Long Fist + Qinna + Shuaijiao + Baiji does not equal any of those > but it might be Sanda

I have no problem with combining arts, you can get some pretty impressive styles out of that, jut don't try and pass it off as something it is not. But if you train just 1 art and train it well with a good teacher that is fine too.


----------



## almost a ghost (Feb 22, 2008)

Xue and Crane have really hit the nail on the head!!!


----------



## graychuan (Feb 22, 2008)

On another tangent but hopefully fits the criterium of the thread... 
    I have also found that most artists who successfully blend more than one style are experienced and have internalized the fundamentals of one( thier core or 'mother' system) to a very high degree. Higher than what just is required for first level black belt. Also any artists or masters that I have personally been impressed with have all studied more than one style but formally and openly stick to thier core.
  Maybe this is due to the fact that the blending is more of principles and concepts instead of forms, kata and san sik. This way the core of one art isnt actually changed but can still benefit from information from another art.
  Im just grabbing here but just one way to look at it. :wink1:


----------



## arnisador (Feb 22, 2008)

Mix! WC works very well with the FMA and JKD, and BJJ is a great supplement.


----------



## profesormental (Feb 23, 2008)

Greetings.

It is important to note the following: Styles are not ways of fighting; "styles" are methods for TRAINING.

The training methods program certain actions, reactions, strategies and tactics in a way that we execute them when needed.

Many factors come into the time of Truth when we execute for real; sport competition or self defense/combat type situation.

Our mental training, attitudes and attributes come into play... our physical ability to execute can be very much enhanced by training.

The training will dictate our predilections in acting in situations similar to what we have trained.

So what does "mixing styles" really mean? This is a real important question.

Sincerely,

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 23, 2008)

for me, mixing styles means being open to learn from anyone.  it is almost like being a seeker for something.  for most people, the value and image of the arts are changing all the time as the practitioner grows.  there are those that are seeking skills and there are those that are seeking a way to live by. also people that have both these qualities.  but those that are seeking skill i believe would be most wise to learn from as many arts as possible.  maybe not all ma styles, but definately i think the more the better- same goes for the study of spirituality or religion for the purposes of selfimprovement.  
to be confronted by many, the singular art is challenged in a way.  not destroyed i think just challenged. it could be destructive but it could also be purifying.
 that would be like saying that any martial artist that ever got into a real fight, would automatically be a loser and the only winners would be the people that never ever fought before. and that's not really true necessarily although perhaps applaudable, i wouldnt admire inexperience either. ultimately, every confrontation, there is a mixing of styles. impossible to be completely alone, even within a martial art, there are various styles.

j


----------



## CuongNhuka (Feb 23, 2008)

Mixing styles (well, cross training in general) can be useful. It gives you new perspective on the training you already have, and the techniques you already know. Look at Win Sao. On the surface it appears to be just about building up your forarms. But, a little Aikido training and shows itself to be an opening for a wrist lock (called Kote Gaeishi, if I'm not mistaken). A little Judo explains why you would block behind yourself in Sui Nim Tao. And so on, and so on.


----------



## graychuan (Feb 24, 2008)

*Beneath this mask there is more than flesh and bones. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof. -V for Vendetta*


Right On ,mane! I like this too.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Feb 26, 2008)

Please note that whilst Kevin Chan is very proficient at BJJ, he does not merge it into the wing chun system. Cratinly we work on clinches and learning to mould into it and around them but we train our wing chun drills and then (for those that want to do it) he hosts BJJ seminars

I have learnt about seven different styles of martial arts, but try to keep them seperate. To merge a move with another move is dangerous, as you are not only switching tchnique, but energy and structure. 

But at the end of the day, each to their own. I have never seen a good fighter who has merged techniques. Even the UFC fighters tend to play a a certain style while upright and then switch to another style if it goes to the ground. To merge between styles while upright or on the floor is risky


----------



## geezer (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamon Guy said:


> I have learnt about seven different styles of martial arts, but try to keep them seperate. To merge a move with another move is dangerous, as you are not only switching tchnique, but energy and structure.
> 
> But at the end of the day, each to their own. I have never seen a good fighter who has merged techniques. Even the UFC fighters tend to play a a certain style while upright and then switch to another style if it goes to the ground. To merge between styles while upright or on the floor is risky


 
This makes sense. Carelessly mixing contradictory approaches can lead to conflicts of "energy and structure" as you say. By sticking to a cosistent approach at each range, for example Muay Thai at long range, then WC for close range, and BJJ for grappling and groundwork, you effectively maximize the strengths of each without creating a mish-mash.


----------



## graychuan (Feb 26, 2008)

geezer said:


> This makes sense. Carelessly mixing contradictory approaches can lead to conflicts of "energy and structure" as you say. By sticking to a cosistent approach at each range, for example Muay Thai at long range, then WC for close range, and BJJ for grappling and groundwork, you effectively maximize the strengths of each without creating a mish-mash.


 
Hey, Guys...with this being said im interested in opinions on the idea of using chi-sao principles and sticking while mounted on someone or having someone in your guard. Ive seen this debated a lot in other forums and maybe even this one. IMHO I can see the connection however the whole idea of Wing Chun's sensitivity is based on the structure and understanding of YGKYM and SLT. Im not so sure that these can be applied when on your back or mounted on someone because being on the ground takes you out of the 'idea' of the motherline, chum, chi sao and all that. Why jam, wedge, slice and cut to make them fight for balance when you are already on the ground? 
   SO I tend to agree with you Geezer on this point you guys have made. I really dont think the idea of Chi-Sao is applicable in the ground. Thats what I would think grappling is for. Since I am not a grappler then I would assume there are other concepts that are unique to ground fighting that work sensitivity on the ground? Is this true? Maybe not? Anyone have any input that doesnt take us too far off topic? 

Thanks  :boing1:

~Cg~


----------



## geezer (Feb 27, 2008)

graychuan said:


> SO I tend to agree with you Geezer on this point you guys have made. I really dont think the idea of Chi-Sao is applicable in the ground. Thats what I would think grappling is for. Since I am not a grappler then I would assume there are other concepts that are unique to ground fighting that work sensitivity on the ground? Is this true? Maybe not? Anyone have any input that doesnt take us too far off topic?
> Thanks :boing1:~Cg~


 
Actually, if you look at Chi-Sau as being sensitivity training that let's you use and exploit your opponent's force--then grappling is just whole-body chi-sau. At least that's my perspective as a guy who wrestled as a youth before going into WC some decades back.


----------



## graychuan (Feb 27, 2008)

geezer said:


> Actually, if you look at Chi-Sau as being sensitivity training that let's you use and exploit your opponent's force--then grappling is just whole-body chi-sau. At least that's my perspective as a guy who wrestled as a youth before going into WC some decades back.


 
Hey thats great, man. To be really honest...although I have always been athletic I have never really had that eye of the tiger. Ive always enjoyed sports for fun period so I never really got too much involved in highschool sports. Id rather be at the park with the fellas hooping instead. I took to the martial arts just for this reason. Maybe a little selfish but at least I wasnt held back for anyone else and noone was held back cause 'o  me. But in my experience most guys my age (35) have always had some kind of wrestling background from Highschool dayz or even younger. I am not one of these. But ALL and I do mean ALL of these guys still had a very solid basic skill at wrestling or grappling. Even after years they could still be effective at this. I was always impressed by that.  
  Have you considered training any type of grappling these days? I have thought about it.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 27, 2008)

I believe Wing Chun and Judo could compliment one another well. They both use contact in order to sense your opponent's intentions and to use their action against them.


----------



## geezer (Feb 28, 2008)

Seeker said:


> I believe Wing Chun and Judo could compliment one another well. They both use contact in order to sense your opponent's intentions and to use their action against them.


 
I agree, and apparently Sifu Chan does too--since he took up BJJ. Most WC and WT Sifus would not agree though. It takes a lot of humility for an established Sifu to admit that he doesn't have all the answers and publicly start training in a completely different system. I really respect that.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Feb 29, 2008)

One of our instructors, Lee Saunders, is an accomplshed black belt in Judo
There is a clip of him on youtube doing some boxing and Judo (type in 'lee saunders kamon')

It is very important to know an art's limits. 

In boxing, you're punching is the best around. But legs are vulnerable

In kickboxing, you are a good at punching and kicking but if the fight goes to the floor or close range, the kickboxer will struggle

In BJJ, you are grat at short range clinch and floorwork, but there is no long range game

This doesn't mean that the arts aren't good, only that they specialize in certain areas

In wing chun, there is no ground game and it is often very hard to keep up with a light footed boxer/sparrer

Therefore it is good to understand other arts and train them. 
My advice from a personal perspective is don't train them altogether - train one for a few years and then move on

I did karate for 7 years before I did wing chun
I did wing chun for 6 years before I did boxing


----------



## qwksilver61 (Mar 11, 2008)

Just my two cents,no. I trained in Judo and traditional Kwon Jae Hwa TaeKwonDo and weapons.Basically what I learned was;not being large @5'7" I had to generate tremendous amounts of power especially against a larger opponent to take him down without killing him (controlled,sparring) That is why I leaned to the Chinese arts,they have always appealed to me.I was searching for something similar to Aikido but aggressive and devastating at the same time.
When I discovered Wing Tsun,it was awkward.I had to give up trying to power my way through.The first time I *borrowed *my opponents force,I was blown away.I had a rather large opponent,a construction worker to be exact,the more he powered in the more he ate it,add speed,turnstile,straight lines,protractor,and the wall bag drills,Wham-o!.I knew right then where I needed to be,studying this incredible art.To me it is a complete art,I just wish I had all of it.My other wish was to come back as Sonny Chiba or a master Ninja........all true..all true..


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Mar 12, 2008)

Nicely put. As a large guy I have experienced it from the other side. A lot of other arts rely to much on equalling out the sizes which is disappointing. I like to train with people of all sizes. One TKD club I trained with would not let me do any street or sparring techniques with anyone smaller than me. I asked them what the smaller person would do if they came up against a bigger guy and they told me it would never happen!!!!

Some schools (I am pleased to say) do manage to generat a huge amount of power in spite of size. One of my MT partners can floor me with a kick and he is half my size!


----------



## vankuen (Apr 1, 2008)

Can't really say much else since it's all already been said.  Obviously my take is that there's nothing wrong with blending.  In fact someone already gave my exact focus: Muay thai for most standup (though it probably resembles Sanshou because I like to do side kicks and throws too), Wing Chun for it's given range, and BJJ/MMA for ground work.  

All I have to say is, sometimes you never know what you're missing out on till you try it.  You might be good at your given style, but then find that you perform better in another.  My philosophy is always be pragmatic--it's all about the results.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 2, 2008)

vankuen said:


> My philosophy is always be pragmatic


 
Your description is not pragmatic.


----------



## graychuan (Apr 2, 2008)

One thing you guys may find interesting is that in the Woo Fai Ching System, western Boxing is actually a part of the curriculum in the system. My Sifu boxed for 22 years and has a professional record. He requires basic boxing at the end of the Chum Kil Level in this system. 
  His background in boxing gives him phenomenal hand speed and when you couple that with removal of excess movement and the 'streamlined' mentality of Wing Chun you have a pretty vicious combination. I have actually seen him spar and use WC to engage and take control but after the Chun does the trick he will finish them of with a vicious flurry of boxing. This I think is one example of the mix.

On the other hand, I think his Wing Chun has benefited from the hand speed of his boxing because the hand speed can manifest itself when he is doing *just *WC. So this could be an example of an artist benefiting from two arts but not actually deviating from certain tenets like structure and all that.
 Now that I think of this, maybe we could talk about how a WC structure could benefit/not and manifest/not in Boxing? _Subject for another thread_?


----------



## vankuen (Apr 3, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Your description is not pragmatic.



Other than saying "it's all about the results".     

Do you know the english definition of pragmatic? I means being more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles.  My take on fighting is being concerned with the results.  Hopefully that helps you understand.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 4, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Hopefully that helps you understand.


 
No. 

Being pragmatic means you will take bits of this and bits of that, put it with what you already have to make it better. Not a using "X" in situation "X1", and "Y" in situation "Y1".


----------



## dungeonworks (Apr 6, 2008)

Definitions of * pragmatic* on the Web:


[SIZE=-1]matter-of-fact: concerned with practical matters; "a matter-of-fact (or pragmatic) approach to the problem"; "a matter-of-fact account of the trip" 
of or concerning the theory of pragmatism  
pragmatic sanction: an imperial decree that becomes part of the fundamental law of the land  
hardheaded: guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory; "a hardheaded appraisal of our position"; "a hard-nosed labor leader"; "completely practical in his approach to business"; "not ideology but pragmatic politics" 
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Pragmatism is a school of epistemology that originated with Charles Sanders Peirce (who first stated the pragmatic maxim) and came to fruition in the early twentieth-century philosophies of William James and John Dewey. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic[/SIZE]


----------



## vankuen (Apr 6, 2008)

What is it with wing chun forums?!  It doesn't matter what site, wing chun threads always have some stupid keyboard warriors trying to look smart online or trying to correct someone or bring someone else down with their "superior knowledge".  Word of advice: don't try to run a mental marathon with someone if you're only a sprinter.  

Now, I can't believe I'm about to have to teach grown men the definition of a word they should have learned in middle school...you should NOT have to be looking around the "web" either to know the definition of such a word.  However, so that you keyboard intellects have something to look at, I'll retain a source for you as well. 

First...wikipedia is not a valid source as colleges will not allow it to be used as a source for any paper.  That site was meant to be a source of all knowledge--a mecca of human intellect; but mostly it's just people like those on these forums that spout off something they've heard in an effort to look intelligent.  Referencing the second response, the definitions that were listed from the other sites are used for a different context of the word, as there are many variations to its definition.   

PRAGMATIC in this context means being concerned with results...period.  I'm now going to connect the dots for you, so pay attention.

Pragmatic: (this is the pertinant definition) "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Practical: "consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: _a practical application of a rule" or "_mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure".

Source (don't worry it's a link so you don't have to look at anything like a _real_ book): http://dictionary.reference.com/

...

Simply put: In practicing a style or technique or theory of any martial art, the practicioner needs to be mindful of the results.  Meaning that if you practice a particular movement or technique or theory, it needs to be _practical _enough to actually work in a combat environment.  How will you know if it's practical?  By consistent pressure testing to benchmark your training results.  

In general, most of the folks that I've met that only practice one style, either don't pressure test, or they only do so against their own stylists.  This does not create an effective fighter in my opinion because the exposure is limited.  Cross trainers allow for a broader exposure to the elements that are out there, thereby improving their skills (assuming they are training properly) and their chances at successfully defending themselves or overcoming their opponent.


----------



## dungeonworks (Apr 6, 2008)

vankuen said:


> What is it with wing chun forums?!  It doesn't matter what site, wing chun threads always have some stupid keyboard warriors trying to look smart online or trying to correct someone or bring someone else down with their "superior knowledge".  Word of advice: don't try to run a mental marathon with someone if you're only a sprinter.
> 
> Now, I can't believe I'm about to have to teach grown men the definition of a word they should have learned in middle school...you should NOT have to be looking around the "web" either to know the definition of such a word.  However, so that you keyboard intellects have something to look at, I'll retain a source for you as well.
> 
> ...



Wow Vankuen, if this is how you treat people that agree with your point of view/opinion (please see red highlighted section of your quote...and the point I was supporting by posting the definition), I think it would be even *funnier* how you would react to those in opposition! 

Also, by the manner in which you responded, I believe you answered your own question "What is it with these Wing Chun forums?".  Re-read your last post and look in the mirror.  People like yourself take a general discussion a little too seriously...and if you are so smart as to "teach grown men", wouldn't you be smarter to just avoid Wing Chun forums rather than gripe about them if you are so bothered by them???   

Like I said, I was attempting to support your point in the discussion.  The first definition from my quote:[SIZE=-1]*matter-of-fact: concerned with practical matters; "a matter-of-fact (or pragmatic) approach to the problem"; "a matter-of-fact account of the trip" * [/SIZE]

You also referred to us (Mainly myself and CuongNhuka I am gathering from your post) things such as "keyboard warriors" and some mumbo jumbo about sprinting metal marathons and teaching grown men things they should have already learned.  I won't even waste time responding to that "*keyboard warrior*" nonsense since your initial responce was trying to degrade and insult which further makes you look like an A$$.


----------



## vankuen (Apr 6, 2008)

dungeonworks said:


> You also referred to us (Mainly myself and CuongNhuka I am gathering from your post)


 
Actually the only part referenced to you was the portion where I stated 


			
				vankuen said:
			
		

> Referencing the second response, the definitions that were listed from the other sites are used for a different context of the word, as there are many variations to its definition.


Which isn't a disagreement at all is it?  

And you're wrong about one thing, my response wasn't meant to degrade or insult, it's intention was to end the debate with facts, my tone was a byproduct of my weariness at the crap that's argued in wing chun forums across the e-land.  

But your candor is dully noted.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 6, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Pragmatic: (this is the pertinant definition) "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or_* practical considerations*_.
> 
> Practical: "consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: _a practical application of a rule" or "_mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure".
> 
> Source (don't worry it's a link so you don't have to look at anything like a _real_ book): http://dictionary.reference.com/


 
What is so 'practicle' about switching from one style to a completely differnit style mid-fight? That's all I'm saying.

If you want to argue with an 'e-warrior', go for it. I'll find one for you to argue with, and leave you two alone. Besides, there's a differnce between arguing, and discussing/debating. I'm here to discuss/debate. Which means I want to sit down with someone and rationally converse with differning oppions. Arguing is what 8 year olds do. 
So, would you like to discuss/debate, or would you argue?


----------



## vankuen (Apr 6, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> What is so 'practicle' about switching from one style to a completely differnit style mid-fight? That's all I'm saying.


Hmm...looked to me like you were correcting my use of the word pragmatic, since that's what you focused on...twice.  



CuongNhuka said:


> If you want to argue with an 'e-warrior', go for it. I'll find one for you to argue with, and leave you two alone. Besides, there's a differnce between arguing, and discussing/debating. I'm here to discuss/debate. Which means I want to sit down with someone and rationally converse with differning oppions. Arguing is what 8 year olds do. So, would you like to discuss/debate, or would you argue?


 
That really depends on whether or not you want to continue to debate on the definition of a word or not, hopefully with you not debating it incorrectly next time.  

I don't come onto forums to quibble about nonsense, and so it upsets me when someone tries to correct me--incorrectly I might add--after I've come to this forum to escape that very same nonsense.  

Now if you would like to debate or _argue_ (which in the greek sense is simply the search for truth) sure, I love _intellectual_ conversation.  

To answer your question, cross training allows for a larger scope of techniques or tools or theories for a fighter to use.  For example, if you're trying to fight someone using wing chun, and it's not working...you could try to level the playing field by taking things to the ground wherein another system like jiu jitsu might play a better role.  Or if you're talking about stand-up arts only; if you're trying to use wing chun and it's not working, than you could switch to boxing and it might work better.  

Sometimes the answer lies outside the box.  It's all about results, and if using a more proper tool provides better results--I'd say use _that _tool.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 7, 2008)

vankuen said:


> That really depends on whether or not you want to continue to debate on the definition of a word or not, hopefully with you not debating it incorrectly next time.


 
OK, Mr. Omniscient. You win.


----------



## dungeonworks (Apr 7, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Hmm...looked to me like you were correcting my use of the word pragmatic, since that's what you focused on...twice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, an olive branch...and something other than grammar to speak of 

I still do not yet know enough (not NEARLY enough) Wing Chun to judge how it would work/not work in all ranges as I am still in my first two months of training.  However, I would NEVER in a million years discount the fact that I make mistakes when sparring or figthing and could end up on the ground.  I learned quite a bit about positioning and escaping to get back to my feet when I was training with a local MMA club.  Coming from a kickboxing/karate background, that's where I want to be....on my feet striking.  One thing that MMA opened my eyes (very wide I may add) is how freaking fast and strong a wrestler can be with a shot.  These guys can shoot the legs and disguise it with good execution...as good as a feinting boxer or an adept TKD kicker IMVHO.  Sure, you can move and connect with a strike, but there is also the chance it won't be enough to put him out in time to halt the takedown.  This is why I would LOVE to keep some type of grappling in my arsenal and am open and supportive of cross training.

That said, I see a lot to learn and love in Wing Chun.  Training Wing Chun has reinvigorated my enthusiasm towards training again as it is a fresh angle on things.  I felt the same with Modern Arnis but scheduling conflicts kind of hurt that end for the time being, but as I said, I feel Wing Chun is the style for me now and in the long term and I will just add from there.


----------



## brocklee (Apr 7, 2008)

Don't mix...no need.  WC is about simplicity and efficiency and covers every move necessary for any situation. Well, except for guns and things of that nature.   Adding to it only complicates things and means you lack confidence in this tool.  Which in that case, go take up MMA because they cover everything with hundreds of moves to choose from


----------



## vankuen (Apr 7, 2008)

brocklee said:


> Don't mix...no need. WC is about simplicity and efficiency and covers every move necessary for any situation. Well, except for guns and things of that nature. Adding to it only complicates things and means you lack confidence in this tool. Which in that case, go take up MMA because they cover everything with hundreds of moves to choose from


 
Every move necessary for any situation...?  You've GOT to elaborate on that my friend.  How do you figure that a style known as a specialized short range close combat system with no groundwork in it's arsenal has the requirements to cover _any fighting situation?  _

I can see where you might be coming from in wing chun's theories, because everything is based on certain maxims that hold true in general like the shortest distance between two points aspect, or the centerline theory and so forth.  But to say that it has EVERY MOVE necessary (aside from your gun thing) is stretching things a bit.  

There are very, very few systems that incorporate enough to cover all aspects of fighting--and when they do--you typically will get the same result as a "jack of all trades" because the system probably doesn't cover every aspect of every range of fighting--not in the same way that a specialized system would.


----------



## geezer (Apr 7, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Every move necessary for any situation...? You've GOT to elaborate on that my friend. How do you figure that a style known as a specialized short range close combat system with no groundwork in it's arsenal has the requirements to cover _any fighting situation? _
> 
> I can see where you might be coming from in wing chun's theories, because everything is based on certain maxims that hold true in general like the shortest distance between two points aspect, or the centerline theory and so forth. But to say that it has EVERY MOVE necessary (aside from your gun thing) is stretching things a bit.
> 
> There are very, very few systems that incorporate enough to cover all aspects of fighting--and when they do--you typically will get the same result as a "jack of all trades" because the system probably doesn't cover every aspect of every range of fighting--not in the same way that a specialized system would.


 
Vankuen, I've been involved in WC/WT since '79 and I believe you are absolutely correct. Wing Chun/Chun is superb in its range, and a lot of it's theory is universal--because, like all good combat arts, it's based on physics. But it also has limitations. Brocklee, if you don't see this, either you have a very broad concept of what WC is, or a very narrow mind!


----------



## vankuen (Apr 8, 2008)

Well...perception is reality; and perceptions are often molded from out personal experiences.  So maybe Brocklee hasn't had any situation where his wing chun didn't work.  

I was genuinely interested in hearing the WHY behind the statement and perhaps some elaboration as to the logic behind it.  Like I said--my thoughts are that the theories are universal and the techniques for the given range are effective, but from a mechanical standpoint, it's not all encompassing [to me].


----------



## brocklee (Apr 8, 2008)

You both have very valid view points and I'd believe that I am narrow minded.  Touching on every aspect like vankuen is requesting isn't going to be possible because you never know what to expect.  You're correct though, WC does have a very short range to it.  Should you have a problem with long range combat, working on closing the gap will aid this.  If not, just wait for him to get within range and then do your thing.  There was a post about wrestlers being able to shoot really well with lots of power.  I believe they change their mind when concrete or tile is involved.  I'm sure there's someone out there that would do it, you just have to handle that the best that you can.  Keep in mind, stating that WC has a move to cover everything doesn't mean that you can win or beat out every situation.   That comes down to the attributes of both fighters and who has the most want or drive.  

As far as not having ground work, that is very incorrect.  Every move you can do on your feet can be used on your side or on even on your back.  Even a simple punch can be used while on our back because of the form we use while others are used to needing the space to throw their elbow behind them before they throw out their punch.  Also, you'd be better on your feet, so utilizing anti-grappling would probably be the best bet. 

As far as my success with WC...it's due to me getting my butt kicked so bad when I was 16 that I decided I wasn't going to let it happen again.  I love to fight and that's why I have WC.  The problem with that now a days, is fear causes people to bring guns and shoot the better fighters.


----------



## vankuen (Apr 8, 2008)

It's not necessarily narrow minded man, it's just your mind.  If you didn't fully believe in what you were doing you wouldn't be doing it.  I'm just a firm believer in people using some actual logic to back up their claims, including my own. Your elaboration makes sense to me, albeit some parts I'd debate as questionable...  



brocklee said:


> You both have very valid view points and I'd believe that I am narrow minded. Touching on every aspect like vankuen is requesting isn't going to be possible because you never know what to expect. You're correct though, WC does have a very short range to it. Should you have a problem with long range combat, working on closing the gap will aid this. If not, just wait for him to get within range and then do your thing.


I agree!  Why worry about fighting from a distance when the guy can only hit you when he's close?  It was the same mindset I took as well in wing chun.  However--keep in mind that people have different ranges to their arms, and thus your _opponent's_ range might be different than _your_ range.  That can sometimes pose a problem in wing chun because you might be able to bridge the forearms...and still not be able to hit his torso.  Kinda puts a damper on the whole simultanous attack and defense habits.  



brocklee said:


> That comes down to the attributes of both fighters and who has the most want or drive.


Yep--regardless of style--mental and physical conditioning is king.  



brocklee said:


> As far as not having ground work, that is very incorrect. Every move you can do on your feet can be used on your side or on even on your back. Even a simple punch can be used while on our back because of the form we use while others are used to needing the space to throw their elbow behind them before they throw out their punch. Also, you'd be better on your feet, so utilizing anti-grappling would probably be the best bet.


Ah!  The fallacy of the standup arts vs. the grappling arts.  When I said groundwork--I'm comparing it to styles that focalize their skills on the ground, which is usually grappling and not laying on the ground with punches and kicks.  

The theory of being able to do the same movements on the ground is true, in theory and only to a degree.  In application it fails miserably, especially against a ground specialist.  You see it all the time in fights of any kind, sport fighting event, etc.  

Remember, in any standup art, power comes from the ground through kinetic linkage of the joints.  On the ground, the standup fighter no longer has the ability to do this.  On the ground, in the bottom position, your punches are for the most part arm punches--though you can obtain some leverage with another part of your back or what have you to help aid in the power but nontheless the punches are lacking the same power they did when you were standing.  On the side it's even worse, there your punches are truly just "arm" punches.  Now if you're the guy on top, because of gravity, your punches now have double the power.  So on the ground--your statement could be true if you're going for a ground and pound and find yourself on the top.  

In general, if you're betting on the outcome of a groundfight between a wing chun guy and a judo/jiu-jitsu guy--who are you really going to bet on?  Be honest!


----------



## brocklee (Apr 8, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Your elaboration makes sense to me, albeit some parts I'd debate as questionable...



I encourage debating and there are many opportunities while posting on a forums to do so...and its almost never ending because there are so many view points and possibilities.



vankuen said:


> keep in mind that people have different ranges to their arms, and thus your _opponent's_ range might be different than _your_ range.  That can sometimes pose a problem in wing chun because you might be able to bridge the forearms...and still not be able to hit his torso.  Kinda puts a damper on the whole simultanous attack and defense habits.



People do have different striking ranges but the thing is, you should recognize this from the initial approach and make the appropriate adaptations.  Closing the gap means more then just bridging the forearm, this is something we do in training to get used to moving in and forcing a possible collapse.  What the goal SHOULD be is to move in to an uncomfortably close range and force the opponent to lose their ability to use their strengths.  In this situation, long arms.  Another thing that may help is taking the focus off of the torso.  I enjoy attacking everything...the hands are a lot of fun.  Do a couple strikes to the back of their fists and it will immobilize them fast.  They'll be aching for days afterwards too  

As for the simultanous attack and defense habits, this is something that is taught to get a practitioner used to multitasking while remaining square.  Its just a small portion to the battle and it should be used....but there's a proper time for it.  You can take the defensive portion and turn it offensive and now you have a double attack...or vice versa.






vankuen said:


> In general, if you're betting on the outcome of a groundfight between a wing chun guy and a judo/jiu-jitsu guy--who are you really going to bet on?  Be honest!



Bruce Lee vs. the special olympics jiu-jitsu guy?  I'd bet on bruce lee  

I would have touched on the ground fighting vs WC portion of your response but Im at work right now and it would take me forever!! lol  My opinion is ground fighters don't usually go to the ground in a bar, I have with someone before and it was easy to get out of because the guy hurt himself on the way down.  

You have great and valid arguments


----------



## vankuen (Apr 8, 2008)

Likewise.  I think that the debating often times helps the participants and others to think about what's most important in their training.  So it's good even if people don't "agree".  

I know what you're saying with the entry.  As oftentimes in the use of WC my goal is to completely immobilize the arms of the other guy so that I hail down god's fury on his head.  

But yep...in theory...lot's of stuff works.  In application...sometimes not so much.


----------



## brocklee (Apr 8, 2008)

In theory, everything should work.  If not, mentally you're setting yourself up for failure.  

The application part really has to do with the practitioner and how attune they are to their environment, their ability to remain relaxed and how fast their problem solving portion of the brain is.  If you're good with logic, If/then equating, it really becomes a game of answering requests that the opponent is giving out.


----------



## vankuen (Apr 8, 2008)

Not only that...but also being the proper condition to respond appropriately.


----------



## brocklee (Apr 8, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Not only that...but also being the proper condition to respond appropriately.



To me, the proper condition_ is_ remaining relaxed.  Being relaxed allows for focus and agility to take effect.


----------



## vankuen (Apr 8, 2008)

brocklee said:


> To me, the proper condition_ is_ remaining relaxed. Being relaxed allows for focus and agility to take effect.


 
Absolutely, that's part of it; but relaxation comes naturally with repitition of the activity--both mentally through familiarity and more efficient synaptic activity, and physically through muscle memory.  

At first when someone fights, no matter how many drills they've done up to that point, things are chaotic, the mind is running in fast forward, the body is fueled by adrenaline and cortisol, the hands shake, and techniques all of a sudden aren't as crisp as they once were.  

Over time, with further pressure testing, those things will reduce in severity, things settle down in the mind even though the external world is just as chaotic as it was the first time.  All of sudden, everything is moving in slow motion, the body moves as it's been trained now, and that person is now in the eye of the storm instead of in the skirts of it.


----------



## brocklee (Apr 8, 2008)

vankuen said:


> Absolutely, that's part of it; but relaxation comes naturally with repitition of the activity--both mentally through familiarity and more efficient synaptic activity, and physically through muscle memory.
> 
> At first when someone fights, no matter how many drills they've done up to that point, things are chaotic, the mind is running in fast forward, the body is fueled by adrenaline and cortisol, the hands shake, and techniques all of a sudden aren't as crisp as they once were.
> 
> Over time, with further pressure testing, those things will reduce in severity, things settle down in the mind even though the external world is just as chaotic as it was the first time.  All of sudden, everything is moving in slow motion, the body moves as it's been trained now, and that person is now in the eye of the storm instead of in the skirts of it.



lol, perfect description.  Non of my "non-fighter" buddies believe that time actually slows down and you're presented with options and paths that will determine the outcome.   

Great post!!  :bow:


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 12, 2008)

I've just posted an interview with Sami Berik (UK MMA fighter) up on the MMA forum where he talks about his CMA background and what it gives him.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=960440#post960440


----------



## brocklee (Apr 13, 2008)

I just read that entire thread.  Those are all just a bunch of opinions from two sides constantly nit picking what each other said.

Most of them had valid points even if they bickered a ton.  Lots of ego goin around that thread.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 13, 2008)

brocklee said:


> I just read that entire thread. Those are all just a bunch of opinions from two sides constantly nit picking what each other said.
> 
> Most of them had valid points even if they bickered a ton. Lots of ego goin around that thread.


 
How very strange! I would have never geussed such a thing could happen on a forum!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> How very strange! I would have never geussed such a thing could happen on a forum!


 
I'm quite as shocked as you are! what! a whole bunch of opinions, well I never.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 13, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'm quite as shocked as you are! what! a whole bunch of opinions, well I never.


 
A whole bunch of ego-driven oppions!


----------



## brocklee (Apr 14, 2008)

Yes, nothing was factual and it was a waste of time to read the entire thing. That was my point.  

I guess I was hoping to see numbers or something that made sense.  Not, "I think this" or "I think that"...because that's what we already have going on in this thread.  

It's funny though, the same nit pickers nit picked my post.  Oh well, gotta love the net


----------



## kalimistress (Apr 21, 2008)

I believe in taking what is useful to you personally.  For me that is a mixing of Chinese and Filipino arts and a little BJJ thrown in in case i end up on the ground.  There is no right or wrong ...only what feels right to you individually.


----------

