# The Three Components of Wing Chun



## KPM (Sep 12, 2014)

I like to look at it his way....Wing Chun has three aspects or components:  the guiding principles and concepts, body structure and mechanics, and the actual techniques.  While each aspect is important, to me the body structure and mechanics is what makes Wing Chun....Wing Chun!  You can apply Wing Chun concepts to boxing, but that doesn't automatically make it Wing Chun!  And you can add Wing Chun hand techniques to a boxing structure, but that doesn't automatically make it Wing Chun either!  What sets Wing Chun and boxing apart is the body structure and the biomechanics used in generating power.  If you change that, then its no longer Wing Chun in my opinion.  The "engine" drives the car.  The paint, tires, and seat covers are important, but not as important as the engine.  You can have two cars with the same paint, tires, and seat covers...but one may have a Ferrari engine and the other a Fiat engine!  If you are trying to do Wing Chun, but have resorted to using a boxing structure because that's what comes out in your sparring sessions, then to me you are no longer doing Wing Chun.   Call it "Wing Chun boxing" or maybe "boxing with Wing Chun" or something like that.  But it ain't Wing Chun Kuen!

That's why I have to speak up when I see a video of someone bouncing around on the balls of their feet, bobbing their head around, bending over at the waist, and swinging the shoulders when they punch....but then calling it Wing Chun because they are using Wing Chun "concepts" and throw in some PaK Sau's and Bong Sau's!  Because to me, if you aren't using a Wing Chun structure and dynamics to send and receive force...then it ain't Wing Chun!

Lately I've even seen people saying in another forum that Wing Chun doesn't necessarily have to look like Wing Chun when used because Wing Chun is "conceptual based."  My response was that if the ***** hits the fan in a real situation and the way you respond doesn't look anything like the Wing Chun you've been training, then you need to take a hard look at your training!  You've probably been wasting your time!  :-0

If under pressure you resort to some kind of sloppy back alley boxing, then something is wrong!  If you are exchanging freely in a sparring situation and an informed observer doesn't realize you train Wing Chun, then something is wrong! 

Now granted, a real encounter is a messy chaotic affair and isn't going to go off like it does in the gym or kwoon.  But if your Wing Chun goes out the window, then you have to question what you have been training. 

I know some people will be asking..."who are you to say what Wing Chun should or should not look like!!???"  I'm not trying to tell anyone what their Wing Chun should look like or that their Wing Chun looks wrong!  I'm just saying it should look like SOME kind of Wing Chun!  Wing Chun has a wide latitude for personal expression.  Two students can study with the same teacher and still have very different Wing Chun.  But Wing Chun looks like Wing Chun.  It doesn't look like boxing.  Now I am speaking of Wing Chun in a general sense.  Your Wing Chun, my Wing Chun, Geezer's Wing Chun, Alan Orr's Wing Chun, Joy's Wing Chun, etc.   Man....I even had someone question me on what I meant by "general Wing Chun"!  

I'm just saying it kind of irritates me when someone does some kind of Wing Chun/Boxing hybrid and then calls it Wing Chun without qualification.  At least be honest and give boxing some credit!  

Ok.  Rant over.  Its been an interesting couple of days on the facebook Wing Chun forum!  Thanks for listening.


----------



## KPM (Sep 12, 2014)

Here's an example of  what I'm talking about:






If Wing Chun wasn't noted in the tag line, would any of you thought either one of the those fighters was  doing Wing Chun?


----------



## KPM (Sep 12, 2014)

Here's an example of mixing in boxing and calling it Wing Chun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKwWxjG_0M&feature=youtu.be

This guys is even selling a DVD about it!


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 12, 2014)

Its one of my pet hates too.

No stance = no Wing Chun , in my opinion.


----------



## K-man (Sep 12, 2014)

I might be a bit simple but I would suggest that WC, like many other martial arts, was never designed for sport and in most cases not even for fighting highly trained opponents. Almost all MAs that have gone down the sport line have modified the way they fight in the ring. They also have to work out how to combat highly trained opponents from other styles which could be expressed as fighting fire with fire. If you are going to fight in the ring you a going to end up looking like an MMA fighter regardless of your origin. If you want to preserve and develop your art, keep it out of sport. Of course there are those who would say you must test your style for effectiveness and I would agree. I just don't believe the ring is necessarily the best place to test it.
:asian:


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 12, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> No stance = no Wing Chun , in my opinion.



Mook, no offense dude but this makes no sense. 
To which "stance" are you referring to???????????????????????
Wing Chun has many "stances". 
Who are you / we to say which is which under whatever circumstances???????
no disrespectful tone meant, just trying to understand how you/CST Wing chun views the term "stance". 
Thx


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 12, 2014)

Well, for one Kwan I'm pretty sure WC has a stance somewhere in it that looks something like this...

In all seriousness though there really isn't any WC footwork or stances in there. I don't think that's something you can even argue over.

Also, how the hell is that even sparring, even if it's _not_ WC?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 12, 2014)

Marnetmar, I hear what your saying man...but my point is this: yes, that pic you inserted is one of the many stances WC has. Who is to say which of the myriad stances we are to use when the **** hits the fan. More over, when a WC man transitions from one stance to another, is he to look like a robot or street mime!?!?!? 
Clearly, amongst some of you here, I have a much 'looser' definition of WC, and that is to be expected because once one learns the 'science' of WC, he/she is free to express the 'art' of WC. 
Now, getting back to point of this: WC is not as neat and clean as most think IMO. For example, when is a Tan sao no longer a Tan sao? Or in this case, when is a "stance" no longer a stance? If a WC player begins in a neutral horse, then as attack begins he turns his horse to say a 70/30, but then moves immeditely to a pole type of horse etc etc blah blah... this may not look very "Yip Man Donnie Yen Movie Like" as most would like to dream... but it's all letters of the WC alphabet being used in a dynamic situation. 
Thx Gents.


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 12, 2014)

And you are correct, good W.C is actually very dull. But if you don't know proper structure, you're really not doing yourself much of a favor.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 12, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> And you are correct, good W.C is actually very dull and isn't meant to look pretty. But if you don't know proper structure, you're really not doing yourself much of a favor.



And I would concur with you my friend....structure (regardless of "stance") is paramount!!!  
Well said.


----------



## KPM (Sep 12, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Mook, no offense dude but this makes no sense.
> To which "stance" are you referring to???????????????????????
> Wing Chun has many "stances".
> Who are you / we to say which is which under whatever circumstances???????
> ...



I can't speak for Mook.  But I would agree with him but say "stances" and mean it in the sense of moving from Wing Chun stance to stance using Wing Chun structure and mechanics.


----------



## KPM (Sep 12, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Marnetmar, I hear what your saying man...but my point is this: yes, that pic you inserted is one of the many stances WC has. Who is to say which of the myriad stances we are to use when the **** hits the fan. More over, when a WC man transitions from one stance to another, is he to look like a robot or street mime!?!?!?
> Clearly, amongst some of you here, I have a much 'looser' definition of WC, and that is to be expected because once one learns the 'science' of WC, he/she is free to express the 'art' of WC.
> Now, getting back to point of this: WC is not as neat and clean as most think IMO. For example, when is a Tan sao no longer a Tan sao? Or in this case, when is a "stance" no longer a stance? If a WC player begins in a neutral horse, then as attack begins he turns his horse to say a 70/30, but then moves immeditely to a pole type of horse etc etc blah blah... this may not look very "Yip Man Donnie Yen Movie Like" as most would like to dream... but it's all letters of the WC alphabet being used in a dynamic situation.
> Thx Gents.



I'd have no problem with that!  Because its still all Wing Chun.  My complaint is when someone starts bending forward at the waist, bobbing and weaving and swinging from the shoulders and call it using a Wing Chun stance!


----------



## geezer (Sep 12, 2014)

KPM said:


> I'd have no problem with that!  Because its still all Wing Chun.  My complaint is when someone starts bending forward at the waist, bobbing and weaving and swinging from the shoulders and call it using a Wing Chun stance!



I hear ya, KPM, but personally I see things less as  being black and white and more as shades of grey ranging from very like my own conception of Wing Chun all the way to being not recognizable as Wing Chun as I know it. 

When I watch Alan Orr's clips for example, I can readily see the WC in what _he_ shows. Less so in some of his students. But that's OK with me.  They make their stuff work. I leave it at that.


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2014)

KPM said:


> If under pressure you resort to some kind of sloppy back alley boxing, then something is wrong!  If you are exchanging freely in a sparring situation and an informed observer doesn't realize you train Wing Chun, then something is wrong!
> 
> Now granted, a real encounter is a messy chaotic affair and isn't going to go off like it does in the gym or kwoon.  But if your Wing Chun goes out the window, then you have to question what you have been training.
> 
> I know some people will be asking..."who are you to say what Wing Chun should or should not look like!!???"  I'm not trying to tell anyone what their Wing Chun should look like or that their Wing Chun looks wrong!  I'm just saying it should look like SOME kind of Wing Chun!



This is so true.  It seems simple. But there are some here, posting in this very thread, who argued otherwise vigorously very recently in another thread.  I don't understand the sudden reversal of position, unless it was more the messenger than the message. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 12, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Mook, no offense dude but this makes no sense.
> To which "stance" are you referring to???????????????????????
> Wing Chun has many "stances".
> Who are you / we to say which is which under whatever circumstances???????
> ...



Stance in our lineage is pretty much an all encompassing term , meaning to have a straight back , to have your weight sunk down.

Whether you are pivoting , or stepping you will still maintain a straight back and still remain sunk down.
In chi sau we might refer to someone not easily moved around , or their ability to absorb or generate force as having a very good stance.

Bouncing around and moving your spine all over the place upsetting your equilibrium would not be acceptable in our lineage as a Wing Chun stance , irrespective of the arm techniques looking correct or not.
In our eyes it would just not be considered to be Wing Chun.


----------



## Argus (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> My response was that if the ***** hits the fan in a real situation and the way you respond doesn't look anything like the Wing Chun you've been training, then you need to take a hard look at your training!  You've probably been wasting your time!  :-0



Exactly. What is the saying? "We sink to the level of our training."

If you believe that, it kind of puts your training into perspective. If we aren't cultivating habits that come out under stress, what are we doing?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> My complaint is when someone starts bending forward at the waist, bobbing and weaving and swinging from the shoulders and call it using a Wing Chun stance!



Good morning Gents. 
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Keith says "bending forward at the waist" as if its not WC. It may not be, if Keith's version of WC (Pin sun I think(?)) doesn't contain that bend. But most 3rd forms of Yip Man WC contain a bend forward motion towards the end of the form. My view is that WC motions (stances, hands, legs etc) are all "verbs" and as such not so neatly packaged when they are being used to save ones ****. 
Now, I know what some of you may be thinking..."wait, but the 3rd form is only for emergencies".... If that is how you view it then fine...but some view it as just more tools for the tactical toolbox...ready to be pulled out and used when needed....same for all six forms. 
If I happen to need to bend at the waist, I do so. If a waist bend isn't contained in Pin Sun, then I can see how KPM arrived at his conclusion.


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2014)

Argus said:


> Exactly. What is the saying? "We sink to the level of our training."
> 
> If you believe that, it kind of puts your training into perspective. If we aren't cultivating habits that come out under stress, what are we doing?


This is true regardless of style.  Can anyone share some examples of what you would consider good technique under stress?


----------



## K-man (Sep 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> This is so true.  It seems simple. But there are some here, posting in this very thread, who argued otherwise vigorously very recently in another thread.  I don't understand the sudden reversal of position, unless it was more the messenger than the message.


Seeing that it's obviously me that you are referring to perhaps you could show me how my position is reversed. In the other thread I was saying that you won't see many of the characteristics of a particular style, such as stance, in an MMA competition because to compete in that competition by very definition you train multiple styles and take elements from each. That is exactly the situation being addressed here. Please let's not go 30 pages down that rabbit hole.


Steve said:


> This is true regardless of style.  Can anyone share some examples of what you would consider good technique under stress?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=evhsnnBkzR4


----------



## zuti car (Sep 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> This is true regardless of style.  Can anyone share some examples of what you would consider good technique under stress?


A punch in the nose ?


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> Seeing that it's obviously me that you are referring to perhaps you could show me how my position is reversed. In the other thread I was saying that you won't see many of the characteristics of a particular style, such as stance, in an MMA competition because to compete in that competition by very definition you train multiple styles and take elements from each. That is exactly the situation being addressed here. Please let's not go 30 pages down that rabbit hole.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=evhsnnBkzR4


I never said it was you, Kman, and frankly, it's not just one person in this thread who came to mind.  

I agree that the proof is in the pudding, and under pressure one's technique under stress should ABSOLUTELY reflect one's technique in training.  As I said before, it's a simple truth, and it's heartening to see that we can all agree on that.  I'll even make a bold prediction and declare that I think it's a truth that every person on this forum, MMA, BJJ, WC, TKD... everyone can agree on; your technique under pressure should well represent your technique in training.  

Let me say it another way.   in an altercation, one of two things will happen.  Either your training resembles your technique or it does not.  Right?

If it does resemble your technique, your training is sound.  Even if your technique fails you, you are training it correctly, and the flaw is in your technique.  It could be the techniques themselves, or more likely you just don't yet have the skill to execute.  But this is why we train, and over time, the skill will come.

If it does not resemble your techniqu, your training is flawed, and you cannot even begin to diagnose your technique.  No matter how long you train, or how good you look, if in application your technique goes out the window you will never truly develop skill.

regarding the video...  is that WC?  Didn't look like WC to me.  Video said Karate.  I'd really like to see some of the things you guys are talking about executed under stress.  Stance, forms...  sounds really cool.


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2014)

zuti car said:


> A punch in the nose ?



. Good one.  But Does that demonstrate the things brought up in the op?  I appreciate the joke but my impression from the posters here is that WC looks different in application than boxing.  I've also seen many excellent examples shared on this forum of WC demonstrations, and the WC punching technique can look very different than a boxing technique.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## KPM (Sep 13, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> If I happen to need to bend at the waist, I do so. If a waist bend isn't contained in Pin Sun, then I can see how KPM arrived at his conclusion.



No, Pin Sun has that same bend at the waist.  And I have studied Ip Man Wing Chun as well.  But go back and watch that clip I posted and tell me what he is doing comes from the Biu Tze form.  That's what I'm talking about.  Biu Tze teaches the "exception to the rules"....what you do when you have no  choice and need to recover from a bad situation.  What Mark is doing in that video is ducking and bending at the waist just like a boxer would.  And he is using it routinely, not as a recovery.  That is not what Wing Chun teaches because it violates good Wing Chun structure or "stance" as Mook said.  That's why at the Biu Tze level you only use it when you have to or are forced to.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> No, Pin Sun has that same bend at the waist.  And I have studied Ip Man Wing Chun as well.  But go back and watch that clip I posted and tell me what he is doing comes from the Biu Tze form.  That's what I'm talking about.  Biu Tze teaches the "exception to the rules"....what you do when you have no  choice and need to recover from a bad situation.  What Mark is doing in that video is ducking and bending at the waist just like a boxer would.  And he is using it routinely, not as a recovery.  That is not what Wing Chun teaches because it violates good Wing Chun structure or "stance" as Mook said.  That's why at the Biu Tze level you only use it when you have to or are forced to.




I guess we'll agree to disagree then? haha. Seriously though, I can kind of see your point about the side to side bobbing/weaving because as far as I know there isn't any lateral head movement in the forms. But where you and I apparently are going to differ is how we view the 3rd form and when one should use it. 
No worries...its all good stuff KPM. Nice thread topic too!


----------



## K-man (Sep 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> I never said it was you, Kman, and frankly, it's not just one person in this thread who came to mind.


Cool.


Steve said:


> I agree that the proof is in the pudding, and under pressure one's technique under stress should ABSOLUTELY reflect one's technique in training.  As I said before, it's a simple truth, and it's heartening to see that we can all agree on that.  I'll even make a bold prediction and declare that I think it's a truth that every person on this forum, MMA, BJJ, WC, TKD... everyone can agree on; your technique under pressure should well represent your technique in training.


 if you are training *one* style your technique under pressure should well represent your technique in training. If it doesn't I agree there is something amiss. However can I say that you can't just take one aspect of that training and say that because you don't see a particular part used in competition or on the street that the person is not fighting as they train.



Steve said:


> Let me say it another way.   in an altercation, one of two things will happen.  Either your training resembles your technique or it does not.  Right?


Not quite. In an altercation your technique should resemble your training.


Steve said:


> If it does resemble your technique, your training is sound.  Even if your technique fails you, you are training it correctly, and the flaw is in your technique.  It could be the techniques themselves, or more likely you just don't yet have the skill to execute.  But this is why we train, and over time, the skill will come.


Agreed, with the above modification.


Steve said:


> If it does not resemble your techniqu, your training is flawed, and you cannot even begin to diagnose your technique.  No matter how long you train, or how good you look, if in application your technique goes out the window you will never truly develop skill.


Perhaps. If in an altercation your technique does not resemble your training it depends on the outcome. If your technique fails it may well be that you picked the wrong technique. That doesn't mean your training is flawed. It means under pressure you stuffed up. Now you can say that that is less likely the more you pressure test and I can agree with that. If under pressure you use a technique from outside your training again it could have a range of meaning. It might be that somewhere you learned another technique that you instinctively used. It could mean your training simply lacked the element that was required, or it could mean your whole training is suspect.


Steve said:


> regarding the video...  is that WC?  Didn't look like WC to me.  Video said Karate.  I'd really like to see some of the things you guys are talking about executed under stress.  Stance, forms...  sounds really cool.


I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you asked a question 'regardless of style' to demonstrate a technique under stress, which is why I posted a karate clip.

As to stance and forms. Stance is easy .. forms less so. Forms are not used for fighting the way you see them performed solo. The form as you see it is like a zip file on your computer. Until you open the file and expand the content it does nothing. Same with forms. Even then it is unlikely that you would see that type of thing in the ring for the same reasons we were discussing in the other thread.

For some examples of stance.
I have no idea of WC stances so I will borrow some from other styles. From Hapkido a stance that we would call Shiko dachi (lower stance).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sSZW1y4B8iE
Same stance in Vale-tudo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LAX0EpKhb6k
And there are a few in this promo clip of Masaji Taira, the seminar in NZ I'll be attending next month.
:asian:


----------



## BPWT (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> Biu Tze teaches the "exception to the rules"....what you do when you have no  choice and need to recover from a bad situation.  What Mark is doing in that video is ducking and bending at the waist just like a boxer would.  And he is using it routinely, not as a recovery.  That is not what Wing Chun teaches because it violates good Wing Chun structure or "stance" as Mook said.  That's why at the Biu Tze level you only use it when you have to or are forced to.



I agree with Keith. The three hand forms and the dummy show us the structure and mechanics for moving, receiving and issuing. None of the forms show a waist bend in connection to a strike. Even BT's waist bend... though some choose to interpret it this way rather than see it as an emergency motion. The problem for me, is that if you do interpret it this way (and therefore say that it is fine to regularly bend at the waist as you hit, and bend and duck and weave against strikes) in doing so you are going against much of the other things you learn in the forms. 

Where in the forms do we see a reference to striking as we learn forward and bend at the waist? If the system was meant to strike it this way, why does it not appear in the forms as a striking method? Why does the waist bend appear only in the BT form, and not in relation to striking?

In the clip of Mark, not only does he routinely use this waist bending when he strikes, he also ducks and weaves against punches (as opposed to keeping structure and shape and trying to bridge) - plus, he also often jumps into an almost-able-to hit-range, and then quickly retreats back out of it. For me this is something often seen in the ring from a boxer (probing the opponent, testing to set up something else) but this is not really something that fits with the Wing Chun strategy of bridging, eating up space, keeping close, simultaneous attack and defence, etc... in my opinion.


I'm one of those crazies who thinks that when someone fights with Wing Chun (VT/WT) it should look like they are.   Take away the video's title and graphics, and I really wouldn't know from that clip that Mark is a Wing Chun guy.

I've seen a Wing Tsun guy use the system in a street fight, and it looked a little messy (as you'd expect) but looked like Wing Tsun. I saw two guys fighting outside of a bar in Thailand, and it was clear which of the two had had some Muay Thai training. In the UK I saw a fight kick off outside of a gym (argument started inside over who was next to use the bench press  ) and the fight was over after one block and a very heavy counter punch. It was obvious that the guy who won the fight (obvious from how he blocked and punched) had a background in Karate. 

I don't see why a Wing Chunner has to look like a boxer. Or a kick boxer, or whatever.

Why train bridge control if you don't ever try to use it? Why train facing if you don't ever use it? Why train entering if you enter with the intention of immediately backing out? And so on and so forth.

Could you imagine a Judoka who didn't want to throw his opponent, and instead decided to base his strategy on another system (and a system he doesn't actually train in)?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 13, 2014)

The  waist bend in the Biu Jee , at least in our lineage is only seen three times at the end of the Biu Jee form , from that I can glean that it is a technique that is probably going to be used only in unusual circumstances.

Techniques that probably expect to see a lot of action as it were , tend to be repeated over and over again in various permutations through out all the forms , but the waist bend is only seen three times at the end of one form.

As to the applications of the waist bend , I have been told various theories , it can supposedly be used in a rear waist grab situation to reach down and grab the opponents leg so that they fall back.
You maybe in a situation where you have been pushed to the ground , and instead of rising from the ground with your head exposed , you come up with your hands leading above your head ready to intercept a punch or weapon that maybe about to crash down upon your head.

This to me sounds a bit more plausible than the reaching down to grab the leg vs the waist grab theory , especially when you could just as easily pivot around and use reverse Biu Jee elbows to the head.
One of my old instructors also used to use it against a side headlock , he used to just rise up , straighten his back , spread his arms and throw the person off him.
I have also experimented with it against the neck clinch when your head is being pulled down , and it seems to work pretty well in getting you to recover your posture.

I think its main function really is to enable you to recover your stance and structure , instead of just using your back muscles to try and get to an upright position , you rise up with your whole skeletal structure.


----------



## KPM (Sep 13, 2014)

What do you guys think of the sparring on this video, starting at the 1 minute mark?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> What do you guys think of the sparring on this video, starting at the 1 minute mark?



Not much to be honest.

Looks more like JKD.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> What do you guys think of the sparring on this video, starting at the 1 minute mark?



It may be better to involve with some "set up".


----------



## BPWT (Sep 13, 2014)

KPM said:


> What do you guys think of the sparring on this video, starting at the 1 minute mark?



Personally, I just don't get it. I don't see how sparring like this improves his student's Wing Chun. Again, if the sparring segment of the clip was titled "Beginners sparring in a kick boxing class" it would make more sense to me.

In theory, you could say that sparring like this helps develop timing and distance control, but for me both the timing and distance is all wrong for Wing Chun. So all I can say is... the instructor looks like a big chap, and he's always smiling and looking happy


----------



## KPM (Sep 13, 2014)

This is one of the guys that questioned what I was saying when I posted on several threads in the facebook Wing Chun forum expressing the same ideas that started this thread.  He seemed to assume that I was some inexperienced teenager or something and wanted to start measuring dicks...asking what my experience was....what I based things on... etc.  And man, I just thought I was talking common sense!  :idunno:

He gives me this line about boxing as a teenager and being some kind of champion, studying Wing Chun for over thirty years, being a cop, a bouncer, etc.   Having all kinds of teaching credentials in 5 different martial arts, blah, blah, blah.  So I look for his youtube page expecting to be thoroughly impressed..... and I find this.  

Why he feels the need to depart from his Wing Chun I'm not sure.  Heck, I'm sure he sees his sparring as being Wing Chun with nothing else added.  No wonder he didn't understand what I was saying.   And he accused me of not having a thorough understanding of Wing Chun!


----------



## Tames D (Sep 13, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Not much to be honest.
> 
> Looks more like JKD.



Are you saying JKD sucks?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 13, 2014)

Tames D said:


> Are you saying JKD sucks?



No.
But the way they were doing low heel kicks from the rear leg looked reminiscent of the JKD oblique kick.

Which is not surprising really since they seemed to have adopted a bladed stance , rather than use the proper Wing Chun square on stance.
Being square on  , with both feet equal distance from the target enables you to have equal opportunity to kick with either leg without telegraphing.

It also permits you to have up to three limbs in operation simultaneously.


----------



## zuti car (Sep 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> . Good one.  But Does that demonstrate the things brought up in the op?  I appreciate the joke but my impression from the posters here is that WC looks different in application than boxing.  I've also seen many excellent examples shared on this forum of WC demonstrations, and the WC punching technique can look very different than a boxing technique.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


My impression is that many people do not fight for real . Under the same conditions , same set of rules all arts will look similar . There are only limited number of things fighter can really do in a fight and that goes for all martial arts . From what I can see , people here wants to see something like this in a real fight 





There is a lot of videos like this on Youtube .People are showing their ideas of what a real fight should be . In realty , there are no complying  opponents , in a ring and even more on a street , opponent wants to put you down any way he can . Simply , different mechanics are involved in a "wing chun technioque "training and real fight , sports or self defense . If body structure is maintained and power generation is wing chun power generation , then that is wing chun .In reality wing chun will never look like this


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> Cool.
> if you are training *one* style your technique under pressure should well represent your technique in training. If it doesn't I agree there is something amiss. However can I say that you can't just take one aspect of that training and say that because you don't see a particular part used in competition or on the street that the person is not fighting as they train.
> 
> 
> ...



Kman, I am interested in examples of WC looking like WC under stress, and it looks like others are as well.   I appreciate the hapkido and vale Tudo vids, but not sure how they relate.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man (Sep 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> Kman, I am interested in examples of WC looking like WC under stress, and it looks like others are as well.   I appreciate the hapkido and vale Tudo vids, but not sure how they relate.


They were purely there to point out that the stances are there in raw fighting if you look for them and I believe they are generic to most TMAs. I misunderstood what you were asking for since the question arose from the karate example I posted.



Steve said:


> I'd really like to see some of the things you guys are talking about executed under stress. Stance, forms... sounds really cool.



I did spend an hour or so looking at WC videos to see if I could recognise stances in action but in reality I was looking at some examples obviously not worth posting. I think it might require someone versed in WC to point them out.
:asian:


----------



## KPM (Sep 14, 2014)

Hey Zuti!

*My impression is that many people do not fight for real . Under the same conditions , same set of rules all arts will look similar . There are only limited number of things fighter can really do in a fight and that goes for all martial arts . From what I can see , people here wants to see something like this in a real fight 

*---No.  That's not  what I'm saying at all.  Like I noted in my original post, a real fight is a chaotic messy affair and I would not expect it to look exactly like things do in training.  But there should be  SOME remnant of Wing Chun left, don't you think?  I was speaking out against those guys who see their Wing Chun completely fall apart under stress and then justify it by saying..."Wing Chun is based on concepts, so it doesn't have to look like Wing Chun!"...or...quote that famous line "anything that comes from my hands is Wing Chun!"....or..."Wing Chun is adaptable".....or...no offense intended here Zuti....."different mechanics are involved in a training, sports, and self defense."

*  Simply , different mechanics are involved in a "wing chun technioque "training and real fight , sports or self defense .*

---I disagree.  Wing Chun is Wing Chun.  The mechanics for sending and receiving force shouldn't need to change from the way we train them.  Otherwise, why are we spending all those long hours training them that way?  

*If body structure is maintained and power generation is wing chun power generation , then that is wing chun .In reality wing chun will never look like this *

---You seem to be contradicting yourself here.  If the body structure and power generation is maintained, then the mechanics haven't changed.  The engine drives the car.  That was the point in my original post on this thread.  To me, you can change up the paint and  tires (techniques) a bit and it can still be Wing Chun.  But once you swap out the engine (body mechanics for sending and receiving force), then its no longer Wing Chun despite how many Bong's and Pak's someone is using.

---And again, why would someone train a specific structure in their forms, drills, and Chi Sau....and then change it up just because they are sparring?  Don't they have confidence in what they were training?   If they feel the need to adopt a lot of boxing mechanics when sparring or under pressure, then shouldn't they just be training that right up front?  Why waste time develop the Wing Chun way of moving and generating power if they aren't going to use it?  Why would that core biomechanic vary between training, sport, and self-defense?


----------



## zuti car (Sep 14, 2014)

*---No.  That's not  what I'm saying at all.  Like I noted in my original post, a real fight is a chaotic messy affair and I would not expect it to look exactly like things do in training.  But there should be  SOME remnant of Wing Chun left, don't you think?  I was speaking out against those guys who see their Wing Chun completely fall apart under stress and then justify it by saying..."Wing Chun is based on concepts, so it doesn't have to look like Wing Chun!"...or...quote that famous line "anything that comes from my hands is Wing Chun!"....or..."Wing Chun is adaptable".....or...no offense intended here "
*
This in not a case with wing chun only , this happens to all other martial arts and I agree with most of what you said here .I just do not agree with a part that art falls a part , people fall a part under stress . Many people would agree that how you train that is how will you fight but my opinion is if you want to learn how fight , you have to fight , there is no other way .This is leads us to a second point  

*---I disagree.  Wing Chun is Wing Chun.  The mechanics for sending and receiving force shouldn't need to change from the way we train them.  Otherwise, why are we spending all those long hours training them that way?* 
Why boxing looks like boxing in a real fight ? Why Thai boxing looks like Thai boxing in a fight? Why Wing Chun, Aikido, Karate , Crane Kung fu ect do not look like in a training practice . Answer is simple , in Boxing and Thai boxing people fight with their arts from day one . That is the reason why some arts rule the MMA and other full contact competition , they fight , they adapted their arts for fighting , they try , they see what is working in the frame of the their arts and they develop what is working and reject what is useless .This is how any martial art should be practiced , or not, I do not practice for fighting , I have seen too much violence and do not want to fight ever again , I  practice for health reasons only and I do enjoy in chi sao , "technique" training , drills and stuff  but I do not believe even for a second all that practice will make me a better fighter , because it will not, it is not fighting.

*If body structure is maintained and power generation is wing chun power generation , then that is wing chun .In reality wing chun will never look like this *

*---You seem to be contradicting yourself here.  If the body structure and power generation is maintained, then the mechanics haven't changed.  The engine drives the car.  That was the point in my original post on this thread.  To me, you can change up the paint and  tires (techniques) a bit and it can still be Wing Chun.  But once you swap out the engine (body mechanics for sending and receiving force), then its no longer Wing Chun despite how many Bong's and Pak's someone is using.

*I totally agree with you in this .On the other hand it does not need to look like Wing Chun .*

---And again, why would someone train a specific structure in their forms, drills, and Chi Sau....and then change it up just because they are sparring?  Don't they have confidence in what they were training?   If they feel the need to adopt a lot of boxing mechanics when sparring or under pressure, then shouldn't they just be training that right up front?  Why waste time develop the Wing Chun way of moving and generating power if they aren't going to use it?  Why would that core biomechanic vary between training, sport, and self-defense?
*My Tan Sao in form will look totally different from Tan Sao in a sparring but it will still be a Tan Sao with proper structure . Why people adopt boxing when sparring , answer is simple , boxing is instinctive , people naturally fall into a boxing state of mind when sparring , this leads to a question how much time someone spends sparring and actually fighting with his wing chun .


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 14, 2014)

This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance.

In our lineage the YJKYM is the fighting stance , we spend all our time in it whether we are doing SLT , chi sau or whatever.

I just don't see the sense in spending countless hours training a specific stance in SLT and chi sau and then when you have to defend yourself you change to a totally different stance.
It kind of defies logic.

In talking to most people in our lineage , when they had to use it for real , they used exactly the same stance they used in training , that did not change under pressure.
What stood out however was the simplicity of the techniques used , they used things that they had been learning since day one.

Usually it was a low heel kick to the knee/shin followed by a few continuous punches and that was generally it.
One student told me he got attacked with a round house punch at a soccer match and he just used a Dai Sau and punch and it was all over.

Under the effects of adrenaline it will be the simple technques that are fully engrained that will come out , things that are trained all the time.


----------



## geezer (Sep 14, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance. In our lineage the YJKYM is the fighting stance , we spend all our time in it whether we are doing SLT , chi sau or whatever.



By contrast, in the "WT" tradition which is my foundation, you most often find yourself in the "leg forward" position when fighting. I believe this is a natural position with parallels in boxing and escrima footwork (think "shuffle-step") that allow you to pursue and close on your opponent when necessary. Otherwise you can find yourself either a stationary target or engage in a sort of "waddle step" which I don't find very effective except for very short range adjustments.

_Mook_, I also used to be one of those you mentioned above who described YGKYM as"a training stance". _I no longer do this_, since I've come to see YGKYM as the fundamental "core" stance and structure from which _all _our stances and steps emerge and return. It seamlessly morphs into a "sideling" or turned-stance, a leg-forward front stance a side-stepping stance, a step to the rear and pivot, or any other WT stance, and then goes back to YGKYM in a single effortless step. Moreover, each of these stances and steps contains the same adduction, root and "feel" of YGKYM. So, instead of the "training stance" you might more accurately call YGKYM the _"mother stance"_ in our system.

Finally, regarding your observation that the stance you train in most should be the stance you fight in, I agree. And furthermore, I'd point out that just as you most often see our lineage's practitioners moving in and out of the advancing-step or "dap bo" (or what you called the "leg-forward" position) when sparring, this is _exactly_ how we train, both in drills (lat sao) and in our chi-sao. So our training footwork _does_ match our fighting footwork. And once you close and engage YGKYM is most often adopted. It is not a mere "training stance" at all!


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 14, 2014)

geezer said:


> By contrast, in the "WT" tradition which is my foundation, you most often find yourself in the "leg forward" position when fighting. I believe this is a natural position with parallels in boxing and escrima footwork (think "shuffle-step") that allow you to pursue and close on your opponent when necessary. Otherwise you can find yourself either a stationary target or engage in a sort of "waddle step" which I don't find very effective except for very short range adjustments.
> 
> _Mook_, I also used to be one of those you mentioned above who described YGKYM as"a training stance". _I no longer do this_, since I've come to see YGKYM as the fundamental "core" stance and structure from which _all _our stances and steps emerge and return. It seamlessly morphs into a "sideling" or turned-stance, a leg-forward front stance a side-stepping stance, a step to the rear and pivot, or any other WT stance, and then goes back to YGKYM in a single effortless step. Moreover, each of these stances and steps contains the same adduction, root and "feel" of YGKYM. So, instead of the "training stance" you might more accurately call YGKYM the _"mother stance"_ in our system.
> 
> Finally, regarding your observation that the stance you train in most should be the stance you fight in, I agree. And furthermore, I'd point out that just as you most often see our lineage's practitioners moving in and out of the advancing-step or "dap bo" (or what you called the "leg-forward" position) when sparring, this is _exactly_ how we train, both in drills (lat sao) and in our chi-sao. So our training footwork _does_ match our fighting footwork. And once you close and engage YGKYM is most often adopted. It is not a mere "training stance" at all!



Was not singling out your lineage Geezer , it was more the videos that KPM  put up about the guy that he had an argument with on Facebook.
In that video the guy is doing chi sau in the normal stance , but then they all break off to do sparring , and suddenly lo and behold they are all in kickboxing stances.  Why?

I am not saying our stance is better than any other lineages stance , we are used to it and it works for us.
What I am saying is that whatever stance you use , make sure you are bloody consistent with it and use it all the time until it is part of you.

I remember my late Sifu , as soon as he walked into the school until he walked out  he seemed to always be in his stance , it didnt matter if he was just standing there talking to somebody , he was in his stance , it just seemed to have become part of him.


----------



## geezer (Sep 14, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I remember my late Sifu , as soon as he walked into the school until he walked out  he seemed to always be in his stance , it didnt matter if he was just standing there talking to somebody , he was in his stance , it just seemed to have become part of him.



That's really cool. He was truly "one" with his kung fu.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 14, 2014)

geezer said:


> That's really cool. He was truly "one" with his kung fu.



I used to think maybe he was conscious of setting an example , but I think really it was just habit.
I seem to do it too on the odd occasion outside of training , I cant be the only one that sometimes sinks down into a semi quasi stance after they have had a session on the old amber fluid.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 14, 2014)

geezer said:


> I've come to see YGKYM as the fundamental "core" stance and structure from which _all _our stances and steps emerge and return. It seamlessly morphs into a "sideling" or turned-stance, a leg-forward front stance a side-stepping stance, a step to the rear and pivot, or any other WT stance, and then goes back to YGKYM in a single effortless step. Moreover, each of these stances and steps contains the same adduction, root and "feel" of YGKYM. So, instead of the "training stance" you might more accurately call YGKYM the _"mother stance"_ in our system.



Good way of putting it. I was taught that there is really only one stance in WT, the _character two stance_. The others (sideling, leg forward, etc) are simply manifestations of that one stance.

Geezer, I continue to find you one of the best WT apologists I've come across. Everything you've written about WT, from IKF articles that you wrote years ago to what you've written on this forum, is well explained. I think you should consider writing a book on WT principles. If you don't want to go the traditional route you can even self publish one on something like bookemon.com. 
Not blowing smoke here...I truly think you deserve a larger forum so to speak. Many would benefit from it.
If you decide to do it, let me know, because I will be one of the first in line to buy it.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 14, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance.
> 
> In our lineage the YJKYM is the fighting stance , we spend all our time in it whether we are doing SLT , chi sau or whatever.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danny T (Sep 14, 2014)

Stances are fleeting, but moments in time. Mobility is key. Fighting is dynamic and is constantly in motion. 
  We train and practice all of the stances; footwork is about moving with purpose. Body shifting and weight distribution is all based upon what is required at any one moment in time and for us YJKYM is the platform we derive all footwork and stances through.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 14, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> mook jong man said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I don't understand about Wing Chun lineages that have a one leg forward type of stance as their fighting stance and say that the YJKYM is just a training stance.
> ...


----------



## Danny T (Sep 14, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Vajramusti said:
> 
> 
> > However , at the completion of any movement our feet will always square up.
> ...


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 14, 2014)

Danny T said:


> mook jong man said:
> 
> 
> > And you are out of range of receiving a kick to the groin when you square up?
> ...


----------



## geezer (Sep 14, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Geezer, I continue to find you one of the best WT apologists I've come across.



Thank you for your kind words. In a few years when I retire from my day job I may consider undertaking something like that. --Steve


----------



## Danny T (Sep 14, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Danny T said:
> 
> 
> > Where we differ is , on the notion if we are still in YGKYM or out of YGKYM  if we have taken a step forward.
> ...


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 14, 2014)

Danny T said:


> mook jong man said:
> 
> 
> > And you are out of range of receiving a kick to the groin when you square up?
> ...


----------



## Danny T (Sep 14, 2014)

Kwan Sau,
It was Mook's post. 
You mean like your post showing "Originally Posted by mook jong man" but is my post. (???)
I simply clicked the Reply with Quote tab just as am sure you did also. 
I don't know.


----------

