# Wing Chun vs. Aikido



## Joab

Are there any videos that show a Wing Chun practitioner vs. an Aikido practitioner? I've searched youtube, and there are plenty of kickboxing vs. aikido, karate vs. aikido, ju jitsu vs. aikido, but I haven't located any Wing Chun vs. Aikido. Of course the problem with these videos is that without knowing how good the individual is in his art it is hard to determine what system really is more practical in terms of winning an actual fight. And without knowing the rules going into the match, it makes it even more difficult. Still, I'm curious, if you know of any out there please provide a link.


----------



## AceHBK

Joab said:


> ...*the problem with these videos is that without knowing how good the individual is in his art it is hard to determine what system really is more practical in terms of winning an actual fight*.


 
With what you said right there it makes no sense in looking at videos of 1 art vs. another. Nothing good ever comes from it.

People of the loosing art will ALWAYS say that that person "is horrible, needs more training", etc. People will criticize their technique and always question why they did one move since another move would have been waaay better. They will say how they would have EASILY beaten that other person. You never hear someone say "hey he was great...other guy was just better than him."

People from the winning art will say "look at how superior our art is." etc.

Then it gets ugly and becomes, "my sifu can beat your sifu".....

I use to look at style vs. style and have since stopped. It has no real bearing on you and is pointless. Don't even waste your time, if you do look your on a never ending quest. If it is something that really makes you that interested, I say find a live person who practices that art and pratice with them and see 1st hand. And make sure you try people of different skill levels.

Just my 2 cents.

It is never the art but rather the person in which decides if you win or lose.


----------



## Joab

It is never the art but rather the person in which decides if you win or lose.[/quote]

I got that impression from doing my research. Some of the guys on the Youtube really weren't all that good at their said art. Not even close to the speed of my former Sifu in Wing Chun, who was so fast I would have thought it had been faked if I hadn't seen it with my naked eye. Still, I'm curious, but your right, it doesn't mean a whole lot.


----------



## naneek

i used to practice aikido and now practice wing chun, i think it would be interisting to see two skilled practictioners of these styles in action but i agree the out come depends on individuals skill level rather than on the art its self.


----------



## mook jong man

Joab said:


> Are there any videos that show a Wing Chun practitioner vs. an Aikido practitioner? I've searched youtube, and there are plenty of kickboxing vs. aikido, karate vs. aikido, ju jitsu vs. aikido, but I haven't located any Wing Chun vs. Aikido. Of course the problem with these videos is that without knowing how good the individual is in his art it is hard to determine what system really is more practical in terms of winning an actual fight. And without knowing the rules going into the match, it makes it even more difficult. Still, I'm curious, if you know of any out there please provide a link.


 
Not only does it have to be practical it has to be practical *for you *. I like to use elbows and knees a lot and the speed and aggression of Wing Chun is a very good fit for me .

 Not saying that Aikido doesn't have those attributes , its just that I like the particular Wing Chun flavour , same as I like vanilla milkshakes and not chocolate ones , its just a personal preference.

 I don't know jack about Aikido except that Steven Seagal does it and It seems to work for him , you sound like you have experience in Wing Chun , why don't you go and train in Aikido for a while so you can learn more about it and decide for yourself.

Like Ace said it is the singer , not the song . I have met some Wing Chun guys who couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag by the same token I have met others that would rip your head off and spit down your neck.

 Like one of my old instructors used to say , you have to have a bit of the mongrel in you , a mindset that says I don't care what you do I am going to hurt you bad . I suspect it would be the same in Aikido , you can't base your decision on what you see on Youtube. 

To be quite honest if Youtube was around when I started Wing Chun based on some of the yo yo's that you see on there calling themselves Sifu and their crappy standard I probably would never have joined up .

 I was just lucky that the first exposure I had to it was in the flesh at a reputable school with a very small women instructor who threw a punch at my nose that I barely saw all I felt was air hit me in the face , she demonstrated a couple of other things and I was sold .

 Go and do Aikido for a while at the very least you will make some new friends and  might come away with a few tricks to add to your Wing Chun arsenal .


----------



## Nolerama

I sense that the OP is going to degenerate to a Style vs. Style thread.

As far as the Youtube style vs. style vids are concerned, they tend to be a lot of idiot kids playing in their back yards, throwing sloppy technique they saw in a Jet Li flick.


----------



## K-man

From the early times Ueshiba Sensei developed aikido without sparring because his philosophy was one of harmony, not conflict. Therefore you were responding to defuse an attack, not promulgate it. For that reason I see no point in aikido being used in a stand up fight situation against a wing chun practitioner, or any other. Both wing chun and aikido have great points, just as each has its failings. I would see aikido being a very valuable cross training tool for wing chun as I use it to enhance my karate.


----------



## CuongNhuka

If you ask nicely I might be able to make some videos of Cuong Nhu guys applying Wing Chun. Which would include us using Aikido. I hate "this Style vs. Style" videos. But I do like "this Style + this Style = this awesome-ness" videos.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Well I've been told (on here) that Randy Williams, who is an excellent practitioner of wing chun, bodyguards for Steven Segal, who is an aikido guy

In the UK, I have found most Aikido guys to be too fixed in the traditions of style and rely on people grabbing you in a certain way

When I did some free clinchwork with an aikido guy, all the holds he got me in I got out of and he kept waiting for me to take the incentive (ie he had no attacking moves). And this guy was an instructor of Aikido

Next time I will videotape it, but the trouble with posting those kind of vids is that people take it as a style vs style

Generally, I do not rate Aikido, but that is not to say there is one or two schools that train it well and use it effectively
My main greivance with them is that they claim to be very self defence orientated when 90% of their moves will not work at street level


----------



## Joab

Go and do Aikido for a while at the very least you will make some new friends and might come away with a few tricks to add to your Wing Chun arsenal .[/quote]

There arn't any Aikido schools in my area. There arn't any Wing Chun schools either. The martial arts community in my area is very limited, unlike Seattle where I lived for over twenty years. In Seattle you can find almost anything. I don't really have any Wing Chun in my arsenal, although I still practice straight punching once in awhile. My arsenal is mostly American Combato, a little Krav Maga, and a very little Tae Kwan Do. I have a lot of respect for Wing Chun, but feel more comfortable with American Combato, it fits me better. I'm merely curious to see an Aikido practitioner against a Wing Chun practitioner.


----------



## Joab

Nolerama said:


> I sense that the OP is going to degenerate to a Style vs. Style thread.
> 
> As far as the Youtube style vs. style vids are concerned, they tend to be a lot of idiot kids playing in their back yards, throwing sloppy technique they saw in a Jet Li flick.


 
Yeah, I saw a lot of that during my research.


----------



## HooT

correct me if im wrong here, but just from what i have read etc,  is that aikido is a LOT harder to pick up than wing chun?
then again, thats only what i have read, so its probally all crap


----------



## AceHBK

HooT said:


> correct me if im wrong here, but just from what i have read etc, is that aikido is a LOT harder to pick up than wing chun?
> then again, thats only what i have read, so its probally all crap


 
Others may disagree with me but I would certainly say so.


----------



## dnovice

What you are asking for here is a waste of time. If you are good at wing chun go spar with someone from Aikido. IF you're not good at wing chun or aikido visit both schools and see which one gels with you more. Then take classes. If you are into beating someone from the art other than yours (be it aikido, wing chun or any other) keep sparring against someone from that art and hopefully you'll improve enough to beat that guy in that art. 

But what happens when you face someone from a completely different art? 

Don't think about one art versus another, just make yourself a good fighter. 

cheers


----------



## geezer

Joab said:


> Are there any videos that show a Wing Chun practitioner vs. an Aikido practitioner? I've searched youtube, and there are plenty of kickboxing vs. aikido, karate vs. aikido, ju jitsu vs. aikido, but I haven't located any Wing Chun vs. Aikido. Of course the problem with these videos is that without knowing how good the individual is in his art it is hard to determine what system really is more practical in terms of winning an actual fight. And without knowing the rules going into the match, it makes it even more difficult. Still, I'm curious, if you know of any out there please provide a link.


 
Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it's legitimate to wonder how one approach might fare against another. But, the only meaningful way to explore this is to forget "youtube" and find an Aikido guy to do some friendly sparring with. Drop your egos, don't worry about who wins, and just try things to see what happens. In other words, what Kamon Guy just said.


----------



## KamonGuy2

AceHBK said:


> Others may disagree with me but I would certainly say so.


 
I would defiantely say that most arts are harder to pick up than wing chun
There are some arts like boxing and MT which have very simple techniques, and it is more about how you apply it (ie positioning)

Many other arts such as BJJ, aikido, ninjitsu, wushu etc have extremely complex moves which require you to 'prepare' your opponent
(ie you need to get into a certain position to pull off an armbar)

In wing chun you can attack from any position using pretty much the same moves. Same with boxing

Aikido relies a lot on your opponents doing certain attacks and then the defence is usually overcomplicated


----------



## HooT

lol,  just ask this mad mofo


----------



## futsaowingchun

Joab said:


> Go and do Aikido for a while at the very least you will make some new friends and might come away with a few tricks to add to your Wing Chun arsenal .


 
There arn't any Aikido schools in my area. There arn't any Wing Chun schools either. The martial arts community in my area is very limited, unlike Seattle where I lived for over twenty years. In Seattle you can find almost anything. I don't really have any Wing Chun in my arsenal, although I still practice straight punching once in awhile. My arsenal is mostly American Combato, a little Krav Maga, and a very little Tae Kwan Do. I have a lot of respect for Wing Chun, but feel more comfortable with American Combato, it fits me better. I'm merely curious to see an Aikido practitioner against a Wing Chun practitioner.[/quote]

I train with some Akido guys. My good friend did akido for awhile(no expert) and a guy who just joined my sifu school.He's been doing akido for 3 years and his friend also has a few years in akido also. IMO Akido has no moves.meaning if you don't give them the energy they need they can't do anything.  And of course I'll wont play there game so it wont work.It's totally defensive IMO from what I've been exposed to. I think you need to mix it with something else to make it functional.just my opinion.


----------



## KamonGuy2

futsaowingchun said:


> There arn't any Aikido schools in my area. There arn't any Wing Chun schools either. The martial arts community in my area is very limited, unlike Seattle where I lived for over twenty years. In Seattle you can find almost anything. I don't really have any Wing Chun in my arsenal, although I still practice straight punching once in awhile. My arsenal is mostly American Combato, a little Krav Maga, and a very little Tae Kwan Do. I have a lot of respect for Wing Chun, but feel more comfortable with American Combato, it fits me better. I'm merely curious to see an Aikido practitioner against a Wing Chun practitioner.


 
I train with some Akido guys. My good friend did akido for awhile(no expert) and a guy who just joined my sifu school.He's been doing akido for 3 years and his friend also has a few years in akido also. IMO Akido has no moves.meaning if you don't give them the energy they need they can't do anything. And of course I'll wont play there game so it wont work.It's totally defensive IMO from what I've been exposed to. I think you need to mix it with something else to make it functional.just my opinion.[/quote]

They always use to make the joke about how if you don't attack Steven Segal, he wouldn't be able to beat you. Therefore, in Under Seige they should have just avoided him and the bad guys would have won! 

I experienced the exact same thing with some of the guys I have trained with. They couldn't do anything unless I gave them energy. I hate arts like that. Sometimes you have to throw the first punch (ie if your mate/girlfriend is being attacked you can't wait for the attackers to start on you - you have to get involved), or if someone backs you into a corner with a knife - you can't wait til he stabs you!

I'm sure there is some good aikido out there, I just havent seen any yet


----------



## geezer

Kamon Guy said:


> I train with some Akido guys...
> 
> I experienced the exact same thing with some of the guys I have trained with. They couldn't do anything unless I gave them energy.


 
I had a similar experience. WT/WC may be tougher for them than some arts, because we don't give them much to work with.



Kamon Guy said:


> I'm sure there is some* good aikido* out there, I just havent seen any yet


 I think that's a bit harsh. Aikido has different objectives than WT/WC. I find many things about it appealing.


----------



## K-man

Kamon Guy said:


> I would defiantely say that most arts are harder to pick up than wing chun
> There are some arts like boxing and MT which have very simple techniques, and it is more about how you apply it (ie positioning)
> 
> Many other arts such as BJJ, aikido, ninjitsu, wushu etc have extremely complex moves which require you to 'prepare' your opponent
> (ie you need to get into a certain position to pull off an armbar)
> 
> In wing chun you can attack from any position using pretty much the same moves. Same with boxing
> 
> *Aikido relies a lot on your opponents doing certain attacks and then the defence is usually overcomplicated*


Sorry to disagree. My Aikido class is small (8 students max) and consists of 2 nidan aikido and 6 karateka shodan to hachidan, some with other black belt gradings as well. No matter what attack you try, and as fast as you like, we cannot lay a hand on our teacher. He is an exceptional practitioner and that is why we train under him. None of his responses are complicated and the outcome is *always* the same. If he chose to add atemi to his defence we would literally be dead. :asian:


----------



## KamonGuy2

K-man said:


> Sorry to disagree. My Aikido class is small (8 students max) and consists of 2 nidan aikido and 6 karateka shodan to hachidan, some with other black belt gradings as well. No matter what attack you try, and as fast as you like, we cannot lay a hand on our teacher. He is an exceptional practitioner and that is why we train under him. None of his responses are complicated and the outcome is *always* the same. If he chose to add atemi to his defence we would literally be dead. :asian:


 
With all due respect, are any of your students good boxers, kickboxers or practitioners of Westrn arts? 

I trained CKD with a 5th dan karate black belt who was dreadful. Sure if you stood still and asked him to hit you, he would put a hole in your chest, but his general martial arts was terrible. Therefore, just saying we have 6 karateka shodan is not very helpful. How long have they trained? Are they really going for it when they go in at your teacher? Really?

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but I have visited quite a few Aikido dojos in my time and train alongside three aikido practitioners who have been training over 20 years each. They are good when it is a set situation but against resistance training they aren't up to much

I think your statement about adding atemi is a bit stupid
It is very rare for any martial artist to kill someone in a fight, even using throat strikes and spine attacks. For example there has never been any deaths in the UFC

In streetfights people can die from lucky hits and usually it is the impact when they hit the ground that does the most damage

It is very silly to say that you will certainly die from his aikido if he tried 

My Sifu is a hard guy and I know that he would probably put me on my butt if I went in to attack him, but it is not a certainty that he would kill me or even hurt me badly


----------



## futsaowingchun

K-man said:


> Sorry to disagree. My Aikido class is small (8 students max) and consists of 2 nidan aikido and 6 karateka shodan to hachidan, some with other black belt gradings as well. No matter what attack you try, and as fast as you like, we cannot lay a hand on our teacher. He is an exceptional practitioner and that is why we train under him. None of his responses are complicated and the outcome is *always* the same. If he chose to add atemi to his defence we would literally be dead. :asian:



Yes,I'm sure he very good,but the key word is the students always attack first..That is why he can do what he does.You give him the energy( commit) and he is able to use that agaisnt you.If you don't commit to the attack he has no move.


----------



## geezer

futsaowingchun said:


> Yes,I'm sure he very good,but the key word is the students always attack first..That is why he can do what he does.You give him the energy( commit) and he is able to use that agaisnt you.If you don't commit to the attack he has no move.


 
Futsao, if I may take this a bit further, one quality of the WT I train is that _we maintain our balance and don't commit our body_ in our attacks. If an attack is deflected or grappled, we flow with the energy, turning it to our advantage. If someone tries to move you around in a circle, we go straight through the center (ie from the perimeter of a wheel to the axle). It is an approach that may not nullify _all _of what Aikido does, but it certainly doesn't give them much. I had the opportunity to watch Leung Ting make a very high ranking master of Aiki-jujutsu apear very foolish demonstrating this. Now, I can not duplicate what GM Leung does... but that's an example of what I'm talking about. I'm guessing that Futsao has a similar approach?


----------



## K-man

Kamon Guy said:


> With all due respect, are any of your students good boxers, kickboxers or practitioners of Westrn arts?
> 
> I trained CKD with a 5th dan karate black belt who was dreadful. Sure if you stood still and asked him to hit you, he would put a hole in your chest, but his general martial arts was terrible. Therefore, just saying we have 6 karateka shodan is not very helpful. How long have they trained? Are they really going for it when they go in at your teacher? Really?
> 
> Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but I have visited quite a few Aikido dojos in my time and train alongside three aikido practitioners who have been training over 20 years each. They are good when it is a set situation but against resistance training they aren't up to much
> 
> I think your statement about adding atemi is a bit stupid
> It is very rare for any martial artist to kill someone in a fight, even using throat strikes and spine attacks. For example there has never been any deaths in the UFC
> 
> In streetfights people can die from lucky hits and usually it is the impact when they hit the ground that does the most damage
> 
> It is very silly to say that you will certainly die from his aikido if he tried
> 
> My Sifu is a hard guy and I know that he would probably put me on my butt if I went in to attack him, but it is not a certainty that he would kill me or even hurt me badly





> With all due respect, are any of your students good boxers, kickboxers or practitioners of Westrn arts?


The most senior karateka in his early 50's now also teaches kick boxing and has high ranking in BJJ. Also spent a lot of time as a bodyguard. Another guy spent his working life on the docks and spent many hours training boxers. No stranger to real street violence. Three others are into BJJ. Ave training for the karate guys, about 30 years.


> Are they really going for it when they go in at your teacher? Really?


 When asked to, yes.


> They are good when it is a set situation but against resistance training they aren't up to much.


 Agree totally which is why all our training is against resistance and why we train with this particular teacher.


> I think your statement about adding atemi is a bit stupid
> It is very rare for any martial artist to kill someone in a fight, even using throat strikes and spine attacks. For example there has never been any deaths in the UFC
> 
> In streetfights people can die from lucky hits and usually it is the impact when they hit the ground that does the most damage
> 
> It is very silly to say that you will *certainly die* from his aikido if he tried


 Sorry, slight exageration. But, when he hits with soft atemi you don't bounce back up! This man is not aggressive but I feel he could really cause damage if he chose to.

*from futsaowingchun*


> Yes,I'm sure he very good,but the key word is the students always attack first..That is why he can do what he does.You give him the energy( commit) and he is able to use that agaisnt you. *If you don't commit to the attack he has no move.*


Not the case here. He can certainly make the first move.

I am the first to admit that a lot of Aikido (read most) just doesn't impress. However, what our group has discovered with this teacher is that there can be much more to Aikido than we realised, and what we have learned fits perfectly with Goju karate.


----------



## CuongNhuka

futsaowingchun said:


> Yes,I'm sure he very good,but the key word is the students always attack first..That is why he can do what he does.You give him the energy( commit) and he is able to use that agaisnt you.If you don't commit to the attack he has no move.


 
But, if you don't give him anything to work with, then there is no attack, and thus no need to do anything. Also, I've been put in wrist locks from guard (western Boxing an Man Sao Wu Sao)



> I had the opportunity to watch Leung Ting make a very high ranking master of Aiki-jujutsu apear very foolish demonstrating this.


 
There's a differnce between Aikido and Aiki jujutsu. It's kinda like comparing Yip Man Wing Chun and Snake Style Wing Chun. You're dealing with 2 different animals, that just happen to be closely related. Aikido was developed (mostly) from Aiki jujutsu, but O'Sensei took the techniques he felt were the most adaptable to different situations. 
I've been put into different Aikido locks from all kinds of attacks (different grabbs, different punches, guard, and while throwing ELBOWS in Chi Sao).


----------



## geezer

CuongNhuka said:


> ...I've been put into different Aikido locks from all kinds of attacks (different grabbs, different punches, guard, and while throwing ELBOWS in Chi Sao).



Unlucky you. Them things really hurt! ...But then so do elbow strikes. If I were richer, smarter, and had more time, I'd want to learn it all.


----------



## futsaowingchun

geezer said:


> Futsao, if I may take this a bit further, one quality of the WT I train is that _we maintain our balance and don't commit our body_ in our attacks. If an attack is deflected or grappled, we flow with the energy, turning it to our advantage. If someone tries to move you around in a circle, we go straight through the center (ie from the perimeter of a wheel to the axle). It is an approach that may not nullify _all _of what Aikido does, but it certainly doesn't give them much. I had the opportunity to watch Leung Ting make a very high ranking master of Aiki-jujutsu apear very foolish demonstrating this. Now, I can not duplicate what GM Leung does... but that's an example of what I'm talking about. I'm guessing that Futsao has a similar approach?



yes similar.


----------



## CuongNhuka

geezer said:


> Unlucky you. Them things really hurt! ...But then so do elbow strikes. If I were richer, smarter, and had more time, I'd want to learn it all.


 
Who says Aikido is too complex and requires your opponent to be in a specific position? No one who knows what they're talking about, that who!


----------



## futsaowingchun

> quote=CuongNhuka;1157023]But, if you don't give him anything to work with, then there is no attack, and thus no need to do anything. Also, I've been put in wrist locks from guard (western Boxing an Man Sao Wu Sao)


 

In Fut Sao Wing Chun there is a thing called false energy.It feels and looks like a commited real attack but it's not.We let our opponent react to the false attack and use that energy agaist them.I never seen Akido do this they always let the student make the first move and need that to work off of.Perhaps in the highests levels they do this but so far I have not seen it.


----------



## CuongNhuka

futsaowingchun said:


> In Fut Sao Wing Chun there is a thing called false energy.It feels and looks like a commited real attack but it's not.We let our opponent react to the false attack and use that energy agaist them.I never seen Akido do this they always let the student make the first move and need that to work off of.Perhaps in the highests levels they do this but so far I have not seen it.


 
Highest levels my butt! This is stuff a student could be thinking of shortly into there training. As I said earlier, Aikido was _designed_ to be adaptable to any situation. To think that you can only do Kote Gaeishi against a wrist grab because thats the way it is taught shows that either you are a bad student, or you had a terrible teacher. To think that you cann't grab someones wrist and turn it into a four directions throw shows you know nothing about Aikido.


----------



## geezer

CuongNhuka said:


> Highest levels my butt! This is stuff a student could be thinking of shortly into there training...



People say the same thing about Tai Chi. Then there was this Chinese guy that used to teach "fighting tai chi" in the back parking lot, next to the dumpster behind his restaurant after closing time. I got to know him through a Chinese buddy back in the early 80s. His students started using tai chi concepts in fighting right away. I don't know if their _tai ch_i was any good, but they _could_ fight! And, the guy always let us eat all the left over food from the buffet for free. 

Anyway, _Cuong_, do you guys train Aikido along with Cuong Nhu and WC in your school? How did you happen to be mixing it in when doing chi-sau?


----------



## Jenna

Scuse me for butting in and but from my earliest days in Aikido we have practiced chi sau equivalents  A feel for the opponent is a core tech in most arts, right?

I do not in any way fault the OP here for posing the initial "versus" question.  When it comes to a which-art-is-better debate the arguments fall down and all bets are off and but well done to you guys on this thread for not letting it.  Well done 

For me as an aikidoka who has spent quite a few loose evenings messing around in her dad's boxing gym, I can say that the apparent mismatch of styles between Aikido and the pugilistic arts such as boxing (I also spar with a group of northern longfist KF friends) is certainly an interesting experiment and one from which I think everyone can learn provided it is done in that spirit and not as a which-is-better.

I do not want to add any technical gumpf to the debate and but I just want to echo what has been said - if you want to test out your WC, there is no substitute for grabbing hold of an Aikido guy (no not literally - we do not react well to that, ha!) and give it a over a number of sessions.  Even if you find Youtube vids they will give no great indication of how YOU yourself would perform and that is what I think we all want to know, right?  

I find sparring with an artist from another discipline takes at least a few hours to get to the point at which you are both neither tripping each other up with your own awkwardness nor pulling punches.  I think if any aikidoka or any artist from any discipline for that matter is reticent about trying her or his art against yours then they are limiting their own education 

Good luck and good thread 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## CuongNhuka

geezer said:


> People say the same thing about Tai Chi. Then there was this Chinese guy that used to teach "fighting tai chi" in the back parking lot, next to the dumpster behind his restaurant after closing time. I got to know him through a Chinese buddy back in the early 80s. His students started using tai chi concepts in fighting right away. I don't know if their _tai ch_i was any good, but they _could_ fight! And, the guy always let us eat all the left over food from the buffet for free.
> 
> Anyway, _Cuong_, do you guys train Aikido along with Cuong Nhu and WC in your school? How did you happen to be mixing it in when doing chi-sau?


 
Yes and no. Let me give you a little back round into Cuong Nhu, and my school.
Cuong Nhu is a modern ecletic art from Vietnam (though, there are no schools in Vietnam anymore). Cuong Nhu includes Shotokan, Judo, Aikido, Wing Chun, Tai Chi, Western Boxing, And Vovinam. Elements of other styles have worked there way in over time (many Cuong Nhu students have training in something else, and they show it to there Cuong Nhu Sensei, and it works it way up the ladder). So, there are elements of both styles in Cuong Nhu as it is. In the Pre-Black level you learn concepts from Aikido, and a handful of techniques, and a few Wing Chun concepts. The technique doesn't come until Post-Black Belt (I think Sui Nim Tao is a requirement at Shodan). For more on Cuong Nhu please visit the site (www.cuongnhu.com).
As for my school, there are 5 active students, and my Sensei. The other students include a TKD Black Belt with 6 years of exeprience, a Kung Fu Sifu (I cann't remember the style, and I have no idea how long he has been training, but has been teaching for atleast 7 years). Me, (I have some boxing training and MCMAP training), and two students with no other training.
My Sensei did TKD for a few years as a Teen, was a Soldier (who did Army Combatives), did Aikido for 12 years (I think), and has been doing Cuong Nhu for 15 years. He did Wing Chun for about fours (until a year ago). Normally we do a 'normal' 1 hour long class, and then me and the TKD Black Belt stay and do some Wing Chun training, under our Sensei who then doubles as Sifu. The story with the Kung Fu Sifu is comlpex.

As for how we pull off Aikido techniques in Chi Sau, it is simple. Someone punches, someone else grabs a wrist (this would lead into a trap attempt in a 'normal' Wing Chun School), and someone tries a wrist lock ('Bent Wrist' and the reverse are the most common attempted, and the first taught in Cuong Nhu). It was so common, I didn't think much of it, until our Sensei tould us that we were going to do Chi Sau with no lock attempts, so we try more traps. We have more practice at doing locks, so it comes out more in Chi Sau, and regular sparring.

Also, Aikido has it's own version of free style (thank you Jenna for reminding me of this), called Randori. My school doesn't do Randori (though i suddenly want to), but if I understand the rules correctly it goes like this:
using three or more attackers (called Uke) who come forward, and do a random attack (it could be pretty much anything from a grab to a strike), and the defender (Tori) responds how he feels. 
I cann't give you an idea of when you start doing Randori, but it is done in Aikido schools, and full speed/full force after you get there. Aikido techniques are taught progressivly increasing speed/force.


----------



## KamonGuy2

It sounds like some people are mixing up arts and getting confused because of it

When people fight using tai chi, they are not using tai chi anymore, even though they claim to
Tai chi is an internal art. Sure it can be changed and built upon to incorperate fighting moves and street applicable techniques, but these usually are outside the tai chi system

I hate guys who try to encompass everything in their art. It is like wing chun trying to be used for sport (which is always a main argument on forums). If you want to fight in the sport arena, go find a sport art (unless you are genuinely trying to 'test' your system)

If you want to fight, go and learn an art that deals with that. Don't do tai chi for 20 years and then claim you can fight using that art. That just irritates me

I love my karate school because they clarify what is a sport technique and what is a fighting technique etc (ie what works and what doesn't) 
Whereas in many systems, you will find instructors who believe that a technique that takes twenty minutes to pull off, is a good one

Aikido is a fun art but from what I have seen it is not great pratically for the reasons that many people have already mentioned
Sure there will be exceptions, and it doesn't make it a BAD art (ie you have arts that aren't street applicable but are still useful)


----------



## kaizasosei

hmmmn...tough call.  I am have practiced more aikido than wingchung but have been practicing wingchung to some degree for a while too.  
What i think however is that both martial arts or the typical coolaid drinkers are quite vain and snotty so both deserve to get their asses beat.

On average i think that a normal wingchung practitioner will defeat the average aikido practitioner, because the soft stuff of aikido will not work well on the wingchun style. And the sticky hands and hysterical chain punches would be hard for the aikido man/woman to handle or 'adjust to'-leaving the aikido practitioner in a position of relative helplessness

j


----------



## blindsage

Kamon Guy said:


> It sounds like some people are mixing up arts and getting confused because of it
> 
> When people fight using tai chi, they are not using tai chi anymore, even though they claim to
> Tai chi is an internal art. Sure it can be changed and built upon to incorperate fighting moves and street applicable techniques, but these usually are outside the tai chi system
> 
> I hate guys who try to encompass everything in their art. It is like wing chun trying to be used for sport (which is always a main argument on forums). If you want to fight in the sport arena, go find a sport art (unless you are genuinely trying to 'test' your system)
> 
> If you want to fight, go and learn an art that deals with that. Don't do tai chi for 20 years and then claim you can fight using that art. That just irritates me


You don't know much about Tai Chi or internal arts it seems. Tai Chi is, at it's base, a fighting art, period. Most people in the U.S., and China even I believe, don't learn the fighting components, but they are most definitely there. It requires an instructor knowledgable in the fighting applications to teach them properly. You need to do more research.

Here's a couple videos of a famous Chen Tai Chi instructor. These are from a seminar, they are not imported moves, this is what some Tai Chi applications look like.

Chen Bing

Chen Bing 2

Maybe your perspective of Aikido is just as flawed.


----------



## CuongNhuka

blindsage said:


> You don't know much about Tai Chi or internal arts it seems. Tai Chi is, at it's base, a fighting art, period. Most people in the U.S., and China even I believe, don't learn the fighting components, but they are most definitely there. It requires an instructor knowledgable in the fighting applications to teach them properly. You need to do more research.
> 
> Here's a couple videos of a famous Chen Tai Chi instructor. These are from a seminar, they are not imported moves, this is what some Tai Chi applications look like.
> 
> Chen Bing
> 
> Chen Bing 2
> 
> Maybe your perspective of Aikido is just as flawed.


 
Tai Chi also has it's own version of Chi Sao, called 'Push Hands'. And it is


----------



## K-man

Kamon Guy said:


> It sounds like some people are mixing up arts and getting confused because of it
> 
> When people fight using tai chi, they are not using tai chi anymore, even though they claim to
> Tai chi is an internal art. Sure it can be changed and built upon to incorperate fighting moves and street applicable techniques, but these usually are outside the tai chi system
> 
> I hate guys who try to encompass everything in their art. It is like wing chun trying to be used for sport (which is always a main argument on forums). If you want to fight in the sport arena, go find a sport art (unless you are genuinely trying to 'test' your system)
> 
> If you want to fight, go and learn an art that deals with that. Don't do tai chi for 20 years and then claim you can fight using that art. That just irritates me
> 
> I love my karate school because they clarify what is a sport technique and what is a fighting technique etc (ie what works and what doesn't)
> Whereas in many systems, you will find instructors who believe that a technique that takes twenty minutes to pull off, is a good one
> 
> Aikido is a fun art but from what I have seen it is not great pratically for the reasons that many people have already mentioned
> Sure there will be exceptions, and it doesn't make it a BAD art (ie you have arts that aren't street applicable but are still useful)


If, for the moment we ignore 'sport MA', I suspect that in a serious fighting situation with adrenalin dump and the diminution of fine motor skills, practitioners from almost all martial art backgrounds will be reduced to a similar level. Complex techniques will be out the window as survival mode kicks in. Where good training comes to the fore is when in the flurry of fists and feet, arms and legs an opening occurs for a punch, kick or joint breaking technique and that move is basically reflex action due to the muscle memory of regular training. My aikido teacher says that the more advanced you become the less technique you use, and I can see the same thing within karate. I believe that there are many great MAs suitable for RBSD and I don't believe there is one of them that cannot be augmented by another. 


> I love my karate school because they clarify what is a sport technique and what is a fighting technique etc (ie what works and what doesn't)


I'm a bit lost here! Traditional MAs have no 'sport technique'. They have some techniques which may be applicable to sports. As to techniques in traditional MAs that 'don't work' I would suggest you get a second opinion. Maybe your instructor doesn't understand the application. :asian:


----------



## KamonGuy2

K-man said:


> If, for the moment we ignore 'sport MA', I suspect that in a serious fighting situation with adrenalin dump and the diminution of fine motor skills, practitioners from almost all martial art backgrounds will be reduced to a similar level. Complex techniques will be out the window as survival mode kicks in. Where good training comes to the fore is when in the flurry of fists and feet, arms and legs an opening occurs for a punch, kick or joint breaking technique and that move is basically reflex action due to the muscle memory of regular training. My aikido teacher says that the more advanced you become the less technique you use, and I can see the same thing within karate. I believe that there are many great MAs suitable for RBSD and I don't believe there is one of them that cannot be augmented by another.
> I'm a bit lost here! Traditional MAs have no 'sport technique'. They have some techniques which may be applicable to sports. As to techniques in traditional MAs that 'don't work' I would suggest you get a second opinion. Maybe your instructor doesn't understand the application. :asian:


 
Just to clarify, I have been working on the martial arts for 25 years and yeah of course I don't know everything, but I certainly know enough to see what works and what doesn't. Tai chi is not a fighting art, and people who say that it is are just wannabes. Saying that tai chi is a fighting art at its core is worse than a chunner saying wing chun is too deadly for the cage. Its a cardinal sin

Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)

Like I said, it doesn't make tai chi a bad art (I've done it myself fairly extensively), but what I am trying to say is don't make your art try and fit a criteria just for the sake of it

If someone said to me, you have to get in the cage in 5 months time, I'm not going to start training wing chun. I'll go to a boxing academy and work my *** off

If someone says you are entering a point scoring competition, I'll go and train TKD

If someone says that I have to defend myself in a street scenario I'lll learn wing chun or karate. 

I won't do one art and then try to make it fit everything. People like that make me angry. Of course they are passionate about their art and think of it as 'the best', but at the end of the day different arts do different jobs

Traditional MA's have no sport technique? Are you joking? Karate has been doing competitions for hundreds of years. The same with TKD and Judo and many others

A thigh kick is not a street technique. When I do knockdowns (sport tournaments), thigh kicks bounce off and they are only there to weaken your opponent over time
Whereas a kingeri kick would pretty much put me down if a person gets it right

I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised


----------



## blindsage

Kamon Guy said:


> Tai chi is not a fighting art, and people who say that it is are just wannabes. Saying that tai chi is a fighting art at its core is worse than a chunner saying wing chun is too deadly for the cage. Its a cardinal sin
> 
> Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)


 
Actually no.  It might helped to actually watch the videos first before claiming knowledge.



> Like I said, it doesn't make tai chi a bad art (I've done it myself fairly extensively), but what I am trying to say is don't make your art try and fit a criteria just for the sake of it


 
I come from a Kyokushin Karate background and take seriously the effectiveness of technique.  The fact is Tai Chi is a fighting art and those who say it isn't don't know much about Tai Chi.  If all you've learned is some Yang style slow movements without the proper teaching of applications, then no you wouldn't know this.  It's like learning a Wing Chun form or a Karate kata with no explanation whatsoever of the application or the principles behind it.  Your statements undermine your claims of 'extensive' practice.  You can call it a cardinal sin or you can take your own advice.



> I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised


----------



## geezer

blindsage said:


> ...It's like learning a Wing Chun form or a Karate kata with no explanation whatsoever of the application or the principles behind it...


 
Interesting analogy. The first time I saw Wing Chun forms done, I thought they looked very odd and impractical. In fact, I still feel that way... so much so that I prefer not to demonstrate them outside of class. Karate is far more appealing to the untrained eye.


----------



## K-man

Kamon Guy said:


> Just to clarify, I have been working on the martial arts for 25 years and yeah of course I don't know everything, but I certainly know enough to see what works and what doesn't. Tai chi is not a fighting art, and people who say that it is are just wannabes. Saying that tai chi is a fighting art at its core is worse than a chunner saying wing chun is too deadly for the cage. Its a cardinal sin
> 
> Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)
> 
> Like I said, it doesn't make tai chi a bad art (I've done it myself fairly extensively), but what I am trying to say is don't make your art try and fit a criteria just for the sake of it
> 
> If someone said to me, you have to get in the cage in 5 months time, I'm not going to start training wing chun. I'll go to a boxing academy and work my *** off
> 
> If someone says you are entering a point scoring competition, I'll go and train TKD
> 
> If someone says that I have to defend myself in a street scenario I'lll learn wing chun or karate.
> 
> I won't do one art and then try to make it fit everything. People like that make me angry. Of course they are passionate about their art and think of it as 'the best', but at the end of the day different arts do different jobs
> 
> Traditional MA's have no sport technique? Are you joking? Karate has been doing competitions for hundreds of years. The same with TKD and Judo and many others
> 
> A thigh kick is not a street technique. When I do knockdowns (sport tournaments), thigh kicks bounce off and they are only there to weaken your opponent over time
> Whereas a kingeri kick would pretty much put me down if a person gets it right
> 
> I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised





> Just to clarify, I have been working on the martial arts for 25 years and yeah of course I don't know everything, but I certainly know enough to see what works and what doesn't.


Perhaps we could start with a description of a technique which does not work.


> Traditional MA's have no sport technique? Are you joking? Karate has been doing competitions for hundreds of years. The same with TKD and Judo and many others.


Taekwondo only began in 1955, an amalgamation of the five major martial art academies or Kwans.
Judo was started in 1982 by Jigoro Kano. It really began to develop after 1900 and went down the sports road. Prior to that it did have kicks and strikes. 
Karate was introduced into schools and universities in Japan in the 1930s and competitions only became common after WWII, with rules. Prior to that most of the training was done in secret. 
Please give me some references where I can see some of these competitions that took place over hundreds of years. I have no doubt that, in ancient times men fought to the death, mainly with weapons, and over centuries they have competed at wrestling, archery, fencing, sabre etc. Undoubtedly men training in the martial arts in China, Okinawa, Korea, Thailand etc would have tested their martial skills against each other but in most cases it would hardly be classified as sport or competition as we understand those terms.


> A thigh kick is not a street technique. When I do knockdowns (sport tournaments), thigh kicks bounce off and they are only there to weaken your opponent over time.


A thigh kick is not part of my training. I teach that one about 10 inches lower against a well padded knee (mine). BTW Muay Thai as a sport with rules etc also only began in the 1920's.


> Whereas a kingeri kick would pretty much put me down if a person gets it right.


Me too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Just means you need to keep the groin protected. 


> I think you need to look deeper into the history of your arts - you might be surprised.


You could be right, my wife reckons I spend more than enough time doing that now. :asian:


----------



## KamonGuy2

blindsage said:


> It's like learning a Wing Chun form or a Karate kata with no explanation whatsoever of the application or the principles behind it. Your statements undermine your claims of 'extensive' practice. You can call it a cardinal sin or you can take your own advice.


 
If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about

I have no claims - only fact. People on here know I don't BS. I do what I do, and as I said before I am an okay fighter but still have a lot to learn

However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking

As for Judo starting in 1982.... K-Man I think you have got that slightly wrong dude...

TKD is a contentious subject as five different TKD 'masters' told me 5 different stories about the origins. Some claim it 'officially' started in the 50s, whilst others claim it has existed for centuries Not that I trust wikipedia, but there is a little bit of discussion on it here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo

I think people get carried away with the idea of sport karate (thinking of it as padding up blah blah blah). Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards 
As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done
I train karate because it does have realistic technique but people have to move with the times
I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'


----------



## CuongNhuka

Kamon Guy said:


> If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about


 
Is that because you disagree, or agree?


----------



## blindsage

Kamon Guy said:


> If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about


 
You obviously didn't understand the point.



> I have no claims - only fact. People on here know I don't BS. I do what I do, and as I said before I am an okay fighter but still have a lot to learn


 
So, you're always correct and if anyone disputes any of your statements they *must* be BSing?  You have a lot of 'claims', your facts are relative to your experience, and in this case it's lacking.



> However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking


 
Again, you evidently don't know enough about Tai Chi, do some more research.



> I think people get carried away with the idea of sport karate (thinking of it as padding up blah blah blah). Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
> As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
> Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done
> I train karate because it does have realistic technique but people have to move with the times


 
I concur people do get carried away with the idea of sports karate.  Fortunately most karate was not originally done for sport.  As for thigh kicks, they weren't done in early karate, they were added when full contact karate fighters started competing against Muay Thai fighters in the late 60's early 70's and discovered it was a powerful technique in competition.




> I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'


 
So what do you train when you do Wing Chun?  It's mostly traditional moves in terms of striking, blocking, trapping, chin na, stepping, etc.  So, how do remedy that with your ideas of practicality?  Are you even doing Wing Chun anymore?

You spout a lot of definitive statements saying 'such and such is fact' as if you're the only person who knows what's real and what's not, but show no humility that there could even be the off chance that you might be able to learn something new.  I never believed there was jack **** to Tai Chi until I met someone who actually knew the proper applications of technique and I would have agreed with you before no doubt.   I know better now and don't assume that what I believe is 100% fact, but maintain skepticism until I experience proof otherwise.  I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience.


----------



## blindsage

CuongNhuka said:


> Is that because you disagree, or agree?


I think it's pretty clear he thinks they're useless.


----------



## kaizasosei

Very few things are completely useless.  Why should kata be useless?  I think that is to strong of a statement.   Useless for what?  It depends what you are trying to achieve.

j


----------



## CuongNhuka

blindsage said:


> I think it's pretty clear he thinks they're useless.


 
Agreed. But, the the foundation of Cuong Nhu, the very bedrock of my style which I love, is based around Kata/Forms. I just want to make sure that he _is in fact_ insulting the very core of Cuong Nhu, before I decide that I hate him.


----------



## K-man

Kamon Guy said:


> If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about
> 
> I have no claims - only fact. People on here know I don't BS. I do what I do, and as I said before I am an okay fighter but still have a lot to learn
> 
> However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking
> 
> As for Judo starting in 1982.... K-Man I think you have got that slightly wrong dude...
> 
> TKD is a contentious subject as five different TKD 'masters' told me 5 different stories about the origins. Some claim it 'officially' started in the 50s, whilst others claim it has existed for centuries Not that I trust wikipedia, but there is a little bit of discussion on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo
> 
> I think people get carried away with the idea of sport karate (thinking of it as padding up blah blah blah). Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
> As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
> Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done
> I train karate because it does have realistic technique but people have to move with the times
> I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'





> If you truly think a wing chun form or karate kata is practical, we have nothing more to talk about


I cannot believe you have been training for 25 years and you don't think kata is practical. I would love you to give an example of a kata that is not practical (from Goju if possible) that we could discuss further.


> I have no claims - only fact.


If your *fact* is simply that karate kata is not practical, then we will have to agree to disagree. I must confess I held similar belief until relatively recent times.


> However, some things are just obvious, even to beginners. And to claim that tai chi is a fighting art is just wishful thinking.


This thread basically was Wing Chun vs Aikido. I have no practical experience of Tai Chi however I have an open mind. I think there would be many Tai Chi people who might disagree with you, and I'm not refering to 'Mums in the Park'.


> As for Judo starting in 1982.... K-Man I think you have got that slightly wrong dude...


 Sorry, my mis-typing and lack of proofing. 1882 would set the record right.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





> Sport karate is merely a term for competitive training. Almost like a harder version of sparring. Most of the techniques used for this are not practical by todays standards
> As discussed, training a thigh kick (as was done in the early karate) is not good enough for street defence
> Certainly you can lower the kick to take the knee but in the old days this wasn't done.


I haven't seen any reference to a thigh kick in early karate (modern either for that matter). However _sune geri_ existed from early times. That is not a modern innovation. Kicking does not seem to have been a big part of early karate. For example the Bubishi, regarded as a serious reference by many, only shows one kick and that is the losing technique. I don't believe sport karate IS merely a term for competitive sparring as it is mostly 'point sparring'. Try your point sparring against the MMA guys and your finished.


> I've mentioned before that we had two Ip Chun guys come over who ad trained for decades. They basically said very bluntly to many of the enthusiastic people at the seminar that they were putting too much faith in traditional techniques that don't work. Many of these techniques coem from formwork and are only there to build structure, posture and base. They aren't there to teach you how to pull off some fantastic technique, because in forms you are 'fighting against nothing'


I don't practice Wing Chun, however karate is believed to have developed from the Chinese MAs. Our Goju katas were very similar to the Chinese forms. Please point out to me, video if possible, even one of these forms that isn't practical and a couple of traditional techniques that don't work. Karate kata is not, IMO, fighting against nothing. It is rehersing a practical technique against an imaginary target. Please show me a _fantastic_ technique in one of the original kata as I am yet to see one. :asian:


----------



## futsaowingchun

> I don't practice Wing Chun, however karate is believed to have developed from the Chinese MAs. Our Goju katas were very similar to the Chinese forms. Please point out to me, video if possible, even one of these forms that isn't practical and a couple of traditional techniques that don't work. Karate kata is not, IMO, fighting against nothing. It is rehersing a practical technique against an imaginary target. Please show me a _fantastic_ technique in one of the original kata as I am yet to see one. :asian:




Wing Chun is very different when it comes to Kata. Kata in Wing Chun is not base on he does this I do that or using imaginary opponent. The Katas are based around theories and concepts.


----------



## K-man

futsaowingchun said:


> Wing Chun is very different when it comes to Kata. Kata in Wing Chun is not base on he does this I do that or using imaginary opponent. The Katas are based around theories and concepts.


Please forgive my ignorance, I know very little about Wing Chun. I looked on YouTube for some 'forms' and found this clip. It may be totally inappropriate so you might like to comment further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7CQEhvCzU&feature=related
Now, I may be completely wrong, he appears to be performing a number of deflections, strikes and locks or holds. In this example the guy is stationary and mostly uses one hand at a time.

Compare this with an advanced goju kata. 




Similar softness and speed but set within a moving framework. To my eye both are working to the same end. If each practitioner understands the meaning of the technique he is performing, he is practising strikes, deflections, holds, etc against the opponent in his mind's eye. 

Aikido in my understanding, only has weapon kata such as the 31 Jo kata that I perform in my training.




Same principle applies. You are practising against an imaginary foe.

The problem with karate is, for decades we performed actions, in kata, until they became second nature, without having the faintest clue as to the meaning of the action we were performing. Our teachers, who had very little more idea than us, in those days, gave the most illogical answers to our queries which made us all think that kata was anachronistic. It is really only the last decade that we have begun to understand what we had been taught. :asian:


----------



## oxy

Kamon Guy said:


> Tai chi is not a fighting art. In some situations the movements can be adapted to form a weak fighting art. I can't get into the videos you've posted but I've probably seen them before (some guy floating around doing big movements to block a small attack)



Actually, those videos don't show that at all.

The Chen Bing videos have a big guy trying to throw a much smaller Chen Bing. They struggle for a 1 or 2 seconds then the big guy is thrown a few metres away.

The Taiji forum also shows a push hands competition where guys are, with little movement, thrown to the ground.

But either way, I think your misunderstanding is that the applications must necessarily resemble how they're taught. It might be the case with Wing Chun, but in internal arts, that's not the point in the first place.


----------



## mook jong man

futsaowingchun said:


> Wing Chun is very different when it comes to Kata. Kata in Wing Chun is not base on he does this I do that or using imaginary opponent. The Katas are based around theories and concepts.


 
You are absolutely correct Futsaowingchun , when practicing the forms , the thought of fighting should be the furthest thing from your mind.
You should be trying to cultivate energy flow , relaxation , correct structure , precision of movement and projection of force to your centreline.

As you point out each of the three forms indeed have their own concepts and theories and when these functions of the different forms are merged together along with practice of the wooden dummy then it is thought that what results will be a very efficient way of attack and defence.


----------



## CuongNhuka

Wing Chun Forms are about ingraining principles in the students mind about how to move at varying levels of experience. Sui Nim Tao is mostly about immovable elbow and maintaining center line (there are more, but this is all I can think of), and so on up to the weapons. However, Karate Kata are about this also. The Shotokan equivent to Sui Nim Tao is Taekyoku, which is a set of different katas. Again, those katas are mostly about ingraining principles and basic posture training. Even the name shows that they have a similar intent. Sui Nim Tao means 'little idea', a refernce to the fact that you are getting small parts of the form (or, little ideas of it). Taekyoku is 'first challenge' (I think), again, your first challenge is basic posture, etc.

However, this is not to say that those katas are impratical.  There is a move in Sui Nim Tao were you place both your hands on your lower back, and push down and slightly back. This movement is a defense a rear bear hug. In Taekyoku Shodan (the first of the set) the first move is to step forward into a lunge-like stance, use a low block. If you add the load (left hand at your ear, right hand in a low level punch), the movement becomes it's own technique. Moving to the load becomes a deflection, the load is a guarded position, and then you step forward (invading your opponents space), then as you bring your lower hand (the right) back to your hips you grab your opponents sleave, and use the actual blocking moving to sweep your opponent over your leg. By the way, that sweep is an Aikido Technique called 'over the neck takedown'

When doing Forms (no matter the style) you should not be thinking about fighting, doing Kata and nothing else will not make you a fighter in any regard. However, when you are at home, or waiting for class to begin, you should be sitting off to the side thinking "mmm.... why do we do this technique/combination of techniques?" If you do, you will notice that you have a more complete style then you thought you did, or that the style you train in teaches defenses to things you hadn't expected. To train kata and not think about applications is like having a class, with no water.



K-man said:


> The problem with karate is, for decades we performed actions, in kata, until they became second nature, without having the faintest clue as to the meaning of the action we were performing. Our teachers, who had very little more idea than us, in those days, gave the most illogical answers to our queries which made us all think that kata was anachronistic. It is really only the last decade that we have begun to understand what we had been taught. :asian:


 
I think that depends on your Sensei. In most Asian Cultures, it is expected that the student will figure out the intent of the kata _on there own_, so a Western Trained Sensei probably wouldn't know too much about applications, unless he was lucky or clever. Or, if you had an Eastern Trained Sensei, he might expect you to figure out applications on your own. However, Cuong Nhu is based around Kata (we teach 17 before Black Belt, along with various other training). Our Founder (Late O'Sensei Ngo Dong) believed that Kata is the foundation of Martial Arts, therefor, everyone in Cuong Nhu who has been in for more then a year has to come up with applications to there forms.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Oh dear lord.....

For the record, karate kata and forms are NOT useless
They help build structure and positioning as well as many other things within your training. The point was that you aren't going to go up to someone and fight them the same way that you do the kata
Yes you will take elements of such training into a real fight, but you aren't going to do a jodan uki the same way that you do in the kata for example
If you do you will fail. Truly

A great example of all this is one of my favourite MMA guys Neil Stone
He took karate into the cage and blew everyone away

He talks very specifically of the difference between sport karate and traditional karate

Blindsage - I was never saying that 'I am right and everyone else is wrong'. But there are some certainties in the martial arts world
It is like me arguing that boxers don't use kicks and then someone videotaping a boxer kicking and claiming that I'm wrong. Everyone knows that boxers don't use kicking in their training, yet one or two individuals 'trying to kick' doesn't mean that boxers can kick

Similarly, claiming that tai chi is a fighting art is ridiculous. Just because one or two practitioners have filmed themselves trying to look like fighters does not mean that the art is a combat art
Tai chi is a good art. It has its uses. There are many hobbies in this world that assist with your martial arts training without being martial arts themselves - pilates, yoga and qi gong for example, and tai chi is a little more advanced in these. Yet they serve the body in different ways, developing either breath, core muscles or flexibility
Tai chi is an art that serves to train the body in certain structures. It does not involve smashing pads or sparring or conditioning which are fundamental for ANY art to do in order to be taken seriously as a combat art. Sure, if you get someone who has done tai chi for say 20 years, they will show you some amazing feats. But if you put them up against say a cage fighter, do you truly believe they stand any chance?


Blindsage -"So what do you train when you do Wing Chun? It's mostly traditional moves in terms of striking, blocking, trapping, chin na, stepping, etc. So, how do remedy that with your ideas of practicality? Are you even doing Wing Chun anymore?"
Kamon is very good at doing traditional wing chun, but once we have dug in the core concepts, we only revisit them for training purposes (ie we don't fight people using a bil ma stance etc). Rigid positions and footwork is exactly what hinders many good wing chun schools because they are fixated on the idea of making wing chun look like wing chun
One of my favourite chun stories is of a Dutch wing chun master who had trained traditional wing chun for 30 years. A mugger attacked him by throwing a punch. Do you know what the first thing he did was after 30 years of traditional wing chun? He ducked. 
It wasn't the wrong thing to do, but the point is that sometimes you have to use other things as well as your chun. A single punch can sometimes end fights instead of twenty complicated wing chun techniques done just for traditions sake


Blindsage - "You spout a lot of definitive statements saying 'such and such is fact' as if you're the only person who knows what's real and what's not, but show no humility that there could even be the off chance that you might be able to learn something new. I never believed there was jack **** to Tai Chi until I met someone who actually knew the proper applications of technique and I would have agreed with you before no doubt. I know better now and don't assume that what I believe is 100% fact, but maintain skepticism until I experience proof otherwise. I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience. "
And I have never said this either. I am always open to being proved wrong. Unlike some people on here who insist that they will never get taken to the floor, I know that there are always things I won't have seen (its a big world out there), but when people 'stretch' an art just to make it fit every criteria, its sad. Wing chun has very poor groundwork. Again, people try to make wing chun work on the floor and it is another case of people trying to stretch an art just so that wing chun doesn't lose face
Use your art for what it is strongest at. If you see a hole, plug it, with whatever works. If a boat is sinking, you dont try and plug the hole with exactly the same material the boat is made out of. You plug the hole with whatever fits!

Anyway, I think people are getting too fired up on here (including me) for silly reasons. No art is crap. but arts can be crap at certain things. Wing chun is crap in the cage. Who cares? It works for what I want it for (street defence). People shouldn't worry if their art doesn't fit a certain criteria


----------



## oxy

Kamon Guy said:


> Similarly, claiming that tai chi is a fighting art is ridiculous. Just because one or two practitioners have filmed themselves trying to look like fighters does not mean that the art is a combat art
> Tai chi is a good art. It has its uses. There are many hobbies in this world that assist with your martial arts training without being martial arts themselves - pilates, yoga and qi gong for example, and tai chi is a little more advanced in these. Yet they serve the body in different ways, developing either breath, core muscles or flexibility
> Tai chi is an art that serves to train the body in certain structures. It does not involve smashing pads or sparring or conditioning which are fundamental for ANY art to do in order to be taken seriously as a combat art. Sure, if you get someone who has done tai chi for say 20 years, they will show you some amazing feats. But if you put them up against say a cage fighter, do you truly believe they stand any chance?




Those Chen Bing videos and the push hands competition videos that Formosa Neijia posted in the Taiji forum show lots of grappling and throws much like you see in a real fight.

You claim not to BS but to use facts, but you certainly don't seem to want to take in new (or in the case of the videos, existing) evidence... You seem to base your opinion on Taiji based on a few demonstration videos (as evidenced by your dismissal of the Chen Bing videos without looking at them). Sorry, but that does not count as "facts", they way you go about it, and it's dishonest to portray yourself otherwise.


----------



## K-man

Kamon Guy said:


> For the record, karate kata and forms are NOT useless. They help build structure and positioning as well as many other things within your training. The point was that you aren't going to go up to someone and fight them the same way that you do the kata.
> Yes you will take elements of such training into a real fight, but you aren't going to do a jodan uki the same way that you do in the kata for example
> If you do you will fail. Truly
> 
> I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience. "





> The point was that you aren't going to go up to someone and fight them the same way that you do the kata.


I think this is the major problem. A lot of people see kata as a total entity rather than a combination of many parts, each part capable of being used in several different ways. Some of those parts can be linked to another depending on the situation you find yourself in but in the main each part is an application in its own right. We were taught turns with an explanation that was totally implausible. We now know that the application is a throw or takedown. 





> you aren't going to do a jodan uki the same way that you do in the kata


 Jodan Uke is an excellent example of what I am trying to say. I think many people would agree that as it is shown it is a technique that would have few applications. We were taught that jodan uke was a block. Almost since day one we all said it was something that you would never use in a fight. Jodan uke was always taught as a two arm movement but the use of the other hand was never explained. The first arm or hand may deflect, but not stop, an attack. I believe the second arm which performs the Jodan '_block'_ is a forearm strike and although it may not be used in the same position as depicted in the kata, depending on the opponent's position can be delivered to the side of neck, into a muscle on the arm or any other available target. So I agree totally with you when you said "you aren't going to do a jodan uke the same way that you do in the kata" but given the opportunity in an altercation Jodan Uke is a gross motor skill, better described, in my thinking, as _Jodan Ude Ate_, which you could use in an adrenaline dump scenario.


> I'm not a big fan of Aikido and don't see a lot of practical use for what I've seen, but at the same time I don't assume that I will never be proven wrong, and remain open to a different experience.


With almost all aikido I have seen and aikidoka I have trained with I agree. The techniques seem unduly complicated and they mostly fail when tested with resistance. The aikido I train is conducted almost entirely against a non-compliant partner. What I have found is that aikido then becomes like karate, boxing, wrestling, ju-jutsu or any other art. You don't necessarily use a pre-meditated action to a particular attack, but you take advantage of any opening or weakness, to apply whatever technique comes to hand, be it strike, kick, takedown, throw or lock. The beauty of aikido, and by the same reasoning Ju-jutsu, is that many of the grappling techniques are openly on display in all our goju kata, just not recognised or taught (by most schools). Thus, I have found a new relevance to the kata and with that understanding I now have a fundamental difference of opinion with those who don't regard kata as practical. :asian:


----------



## KamonGuy2

oxy said:


> Those Chen Bing videos and the push hands competition videos that Formosa Neijia posted in the Taiji forum show lots of grappling and throws much like you see in a real fight.
> 
> You claim not to BS but to use facts, but you certainly don't seem to want to take in new (or in the case of the videos, existing) evidence... You seem to base your opinion on Taiji based on a few demonstration videos (as evidenced by your dismissal of the Chen Bing videos without looking at them). Sorry, but that does not count as "facts", they way you go about it, and it's dishonest to portray yourself otherwise.


 
I did actually meant that I had trained tai chi extensively for several years, starting when I was at school in the 80s and 90s

The point is that I haven't doen one type of tai chi and watched a couple of demo vids, I have been out there, talking to masters, training the styles

If I haven't done an art or trained only a few years in it, then I will never make comments
I speak from fact and personal experience. Vids never show the true nature of things, especially in this day and age of photoshopping and video editing

I have seen Chen Bing stuff before and only validated my argument. Certainly it is one of the closest that tai chi gets to combat, but compared to other martial arts it still is unrealistic in its 'applicable' applications

Sorry if that offends, but that is my two cents

As for evidence, people have been claiming that they can work wing chun on the floor for years without a single shred of 'evidence' yet are given a lot of back up on here


----------



## CuongNhuka

I like that he ignored me. I did prove him wrong, what, 3 times.


----------



## blindsage

Kamon Guy said:


> And I have never said this either. I am always open to being proved wrong. Unlike some people on here who insist that they will never get taken to the floor, I know that there are always things I won't have seen (its a big world out there), but when people 'stretch' an art just to make it fit every criteria, its sad. Wing chun has very poor groundwork. Again, people try to make wing chun work on the floor and it is another case of people trying to stretch an art just so that wing chun doesn't lose face
> Use your art for what it is strongest at. If you see a hole, plug it, with whatever works. If a boat is sinking, you dont try and plug the hole with exactly the same material the boat is made out of. You plug the hole with whatever fits!
> 
> Anyway, I think people are getting too fired up on here (including me) for silly reasons. No art is crap. but arts can be crap at certain things. Wing chun is crap in the cage. Who cares? It works for what I want it for (street defence). People shouldn't worry if their art doesn't fit a certain criteria


 
I don't have a problem just having a discussion with people and disagreeing. The only thing I think I'm getting 'fired up' about is the way you declare your 'facts'. But with your admission of being open to being wrong, I'm content to disagree. I would say that saying Tai Chi is not a combat art is tantamount to saying Boxing is not a combat art. Boxing is a sport designed for the ring not the street, but it has skills that can be useful in a real fight, though I would not want to be caught with _only _that skill set in my bag. Tai Chi, when taught and trained properly, does have useful skills for combat, but I wouldn't want _only_ those skills in my bag.


----------



## kaizasosei

What if you enter competitions like free fight,ufc or tournament sparing?  Anything other than a battle to the death.

Then there are only certain skills allowed alltogether.  So that means that many things in the bag go out the window, which i think is not a bad thing actually.

In real real life the more brutal the move, the bigger the reponsibilty, the bigger will be the retaliation by the other side.  That is the impulse that ones sends and that which is received on the other end.  It is something natural and human.

By taking part in tournaments or great sports like sparing, we also become great, can honour one another and can all be winners all the time.

 But of course, ripping out the enemies eyes extracting their beating heart with bare hands is probably still the most effective counterattack. 

Everthing is possible in the realm of the spirit which is the true origin of..everthing.  ??that is reality.  As a martial artist or warrior one can only hope to not lose in real battle where the casualties are terrible if not fatal. One must be thankful to have the freedom and peace to hone the skills of combat or carry out ones duty without bloodshed and remain healthy in the bubble of ones mostly priveledged existance.  
If it wasn't for the constant rebirth of the warrior spirit, it probably would have disappeared the instant that it surfaced. 









  j


----------



## KamonGuy2

Very true. Ultimately many of the highly rated arts such as boxing and MMA are in fact sport based arts. They are limited to rules and conditions

Yet these arts can make the transition to street fighting very easily and often do

People always see standard boxing as a good street art due to the speed and awesome punching technique. Yet because the fighters train with 14oz gloves on, most train bad guards (ie once you take the gloves off, the guard is wide open)

Most good boxers will train gloved and non-gloved fighting and train both the sport side and the combat side


----------



## oxy

Kamon Guy said:


> Vids never show the true nature of things, especially in this day and age of photoshopping and video editing



I think that kind of discredits your arguments when you bring out that kind of excuse...



> I have seen Chen Bing stuff before and only validated my argument. Certainly it is one of the closest that tai chi gets to combat, but compared to other martial arts it still is unrealistic in its 'applicable' applications
> 
> Sorry if that offends, but that is my two cents



It's not about offending. It's about saying your stuff in "based on fact" when it clearly isn't. Throwing accusations like video editing and photoshopping. Don't know how that even came up.

I am surprised that you think the stuff from Taiji is unrealistic in combat. I wonder what you think of Shuai Jiao or Jiu Jitsu and other forms of wrestling/grappling where, realistically speaking, have similarly principles and many times similar actions.


----------

