# Strength and Biomechanics in Martial arts



## Steve (Sep 22, 2010)

I've been mulling this over for a few weeks now, based on a thread going on in the CMA forums on Wing Chun concepts. The gist of some of the early comments in that thread were that Wing Chun is based upon concepts and not techniques. That this made WC unique. Another was that WC focused on body positioning, leverage and biomechanics over strength.

What I'm wondering is this. Is there any MA style that does otherwise? Does any style emphasize strength at all, particularly over leverage or correct body positioning? I have to admit, I read the comments and my first reaction was, "Yeah? And that's different from every other style how?"

My point isn't to pick on WC at all. Really it's meant to be basically that this thread was discussing what concepts constitute the core of WC. While some of these were specific to WC, many seemed universal in nature. What do you guys think? What concepts can be considered universal?  Are there any styles that don't emphasize concepts over technique?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 22, 2010)

They may not be concepts that are only unique to Wing Chun .
But Wing Chun does take these concepts to the nth degree , to the point where our forms are based on them.

In good Wing Chun the principles will be strictly adhered to , if even one element is missing , then in my opinion it is not Wing Chun.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words , so for people not acquainted with the Wing Chun principles and how we apply them , these videos from my old school will do a better job of explaining them than what I can.


----------



## Gruenewald (Sep 22, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> They may not be concepts that are only unique to Wing Chun .
> But Wing Chun does take these concepts to the nth degree , to the point where our forms are based on them.
> 
> In good Wing Chun the principles will be strictly adhered to , if even one element is missing , then in my opinion it is not Wing Chun.
> ...


I found those videos to be very informative, thanks.


----------



## BloodMoney (Sep 22, 2010)

This is actually a good point. I guess at their core all martial arts _should_ use leverage or correct body positioning etc, and indeed even the most stiff Karate says they do, just from experience many of them dont, or they dont break it out till your more advanced.

As was mentioned above, Chun does this at its core, its what the whole art is about. Some schools put more on it than others, but so do other arts (the BJJ academy I train at is all about smaller guys being able to defeat bigger guys with body mechanics and leverage, for example). Plenty of triangles and circles in BJJ, thats for sure, but is the same importance placed on them as in a Chun class? Generally not

One criticism I would have of some of my fellow Chun practitioners is there is often the belief that, because so much importance is placed on correct body mechanics, Chun is the only art to do it. It most certainly is not. I think it does it better, and more integrally, than others to be honest (or I wouldnt train it) but its not exclusive to the art. Many schools ive seen say they use such techniques, but then completely go against it all as soon as they start moving their limbs, but to be fair so do many Chun schools!

Id say one of the most unique things about Chun would be simultaneous attack and defense, as opposed to intelligently using your body, or being an internal art that relies on geometry.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 23, 2010)

A lot of schools and styles say they use leverage, positioning, and an opponent's strength against them, but the reality does not live up to the billing, in most cases.  Look at how many schools emphasise strength and speed training.  Look at how many schools teach students technique upon technique, but never explain the concepts trying to be reinforced.  How many schools train forms as a way to remember techniques, instead of teaching core concepts?

Conceptual training is not exclusive to Wing Chun and not all Wing Chun schools are good at conceptual training.  In my opinion, a good school should focus on the concepts more than the technique though.  If you have the concepts of a system, you have a blueprint you can refer to constantly to improve yourself.  Keep getting hit by something?  Well look at your concepts to see where you are failing.  Schools that don't have this tend to answer that type of question by increasing physical attributes to make up for the lack of knowledge.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 23, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Are there any styles that don't emphasize concepts over technique?


 
There are some modern dojo that place techniques over concepts, principles. I feel that techniques will address the immediate, but adhering to concepts, principles, will cover all.



mook jong man said:


> They may not be concepts that are only unique to Wing Chun .
> But Wing Chun does take these concepts to the nth degree , to the point where our forms are based on them.


I believe that traditional MA have concepts within their kata and forms, but, in some cases this has been watered down for a much faster gratification as in to much sparing, in place of solid drills.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 23, 2010)

Simultaneous defence and attack I think to me is a good example of a universal concept.  I think most arts will strive to achieve this state through their techniques.  Doing so is necessary to increasing the efficiency of the techniques employed irrespective of the art I think.

So that is my 2cents fwiw.  And Steve you should not have started by mentioning WC now all the WC guys are gunning for ya! Sshhh you should have used your own art as example then universal harmony would be the prevailing concept! 

Jenna x


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I've been mulling this over for a few weeks now, based on a thread going on in the CMA forums on Wing Chun concepts. The gist of some of the early comments in that thread were that Wing Chun is based upon concepts and not techniques. That this made WC unique. Another was that WC focused on body positioning, leverage and biomechanics over strength.
> 
> What I'm wondering is this. Is there any MA style that does otherwise? Does any style emphasize strength at all, particularly over leverage or correct body positioning? I have to admit, I read the comments and my first reaction was, "Yeah? And that's different from every other style how?"
> 
> My point isn't to pick on WC at all. Really it's meant to be basically that this thread was discussing what concepts constitute the core of WC. While some of these were specific to WC, many seemed universal in nature. What do you guys think? What concepts can be considered universal? Are there any styles that don't emphasize concepts over technique?


 
It's marketing, whether intentional or not.  Styles try to talk up their "high points".  Watch a commercial for food, they all say "made with fresh ingrediants" implying that the other ones don't.  You never hear someone say "made with frozen stuff months old".

Same thing with the MA.  There are only so many ways to control and strike another person.  The effective methods will all seem similiar in application.

Some styles will at least acknowledge that size and strength are a factor and that strength can be used effectively as a technique in many cases, but not to rely on it.

When you look at the top masters of a style you will really see those concepts in action.  Look at Rickson Gracie rolling around and he taps others quickly and without effort.  Look at two white belts rolling around and you will see them try to use muscle and strength to make up for the lack of concepts that have not been instilled yet through training.  Doesn't mean the art doesn't have them or doesn't teach them, we are just seeing an example where they haven't manifested yet.





 
And when you see two equally skilled people engaging in a contest, then you will often see that attributes of size/strength matter, which is why we have weight classes.


----------



## Stac3y (Sep 23, 2010)

It seems to me that boxing emphasizes strength, in addition to technique.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

You guys all bring up good points.  First, I'm sure that we can all think of schools that emphasize one thing over another, even in wing chun.  

Also, from the posts so far, I guess my first reaction is that Wing Chun might emphasize things as a policy to an Nth degree, but on a practical level getting to the point where strength, speed or athleticism aren't used, and where specific techniques are supplanted by application of broader concepts is only done at a very high level of proficiency.   In other words, it's only when done at a high level that WC concepts can be seen in application.  

Same in BJJ.  Same in Karate, TKD, Aikido or any other style I can think of.   The better someone gets, the more effortless the application of higher level concepts.  

In BJJ, we talk about concepts like framing.  Framing is simply creating space.  For the aggressor, space is the enemy.  If I'm on top in 100kilos and looking to pass to mount, I want to eliminate space and create pressure.  The more space I allow, the less successful I will be.  

On the bottom, I'm trying to create space.  Framing is simply using leverage and bio-mechanics to create a structure that will be easy for me to maintain and very difficult for my opponent to counter.

The idea of spacing itself is a higher level concept in BJJ.  Creating space, using space, or even more simply put, controlling space.  

I was talking to my mom yesterday, who does yang style tai chi.  She's pretty new to it and enjoys it a lot.  She was saying that tai chi focuses a lot on the legs, generating power, etc through the legs.  I told her that it was similar in BJJ, but that we focus more on the hips.  

What are my hips doing compared to yours? Where are my hips? Often, the difference between a poorly executed or unsuccessful sweep and a well executed, effortless sweep is your hips location relative to mine.  In other words, if your center of gravity is over mine, you're light.  The further away you are, the heavier you feel.

Concepts like this are common in every art I've heard of.  Aikido, tai chi, wc, karate, TKD and all of the rest.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

Jenna said:


> Simultaneous defence and attack I think to me is a good example of a universal concept. I think most arts will strive to achieve this state through their techniques. Doing so is necessary to increasing the efficiency of the techniques employed irrespective of the art I think.
> 
> So that is my 2cents fwiw. And Steve you should not have started by mentioning WC now all the WC guys are gunning for ya! Sshhh you should have used your own art as example then universal harmony would be the prevailing concept!
> 
> Jenna x


  Simultaneous defense and attack.  Thanks, Jenna.  And as always, your strategic advice is spot on.  

Only brought WC up because it was alleged that this is what distinguishes WC from all other styles of MA.  

But, correct me if I'm wrong guys, even within the concepts there is technique in WC.  The straight punch.  Chain punching.  How to correctly stand so that your pelvis is tilted in the correct way and all of that stuff... that's technique.  Chi sao is technique.  Technique that is driven by a higher concept.  

Any question that starts with "how" is a technical question, and if you answer these "how" questions within your instruction, you are teaching techniques and not concepts. 

And again, my point is that this isn't unique to WC.  To the same degree, I believe that all MAs do this.  Are they all successful? Hard to say.  Honestly, it's debatable that even WC is successful in this.  Conversations, even amongst those who train in WC, focus on this very topic all the time.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> When you look at the top masters of a style you will really see those concepts in action. Look at Rickson Gracie rolling around and he taps others quickly and without effort. Look at two white belts rolling around and you will see them try to use muscle and strength to make up for the lack of concepts that have not been instilled yet through training. Doesn't mean the art doesn't have them or doesn't teach them, we are just seeing an example where they haven't manifested yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed.  

Strength, athleticism and other physical attributes can sometimes shore up gaps in ability.  A stronger or more athletic, but less capable person can sometimes overpower a more technical opponent.  I'm sure we've all seen it happen.   Just last night, I was rolling with a guy who literally bench pressed me off of him.  Not good technique, but I can't do that. 

Strength, size, or athleticism can also contribute to the mental game.  When an opponent makes it clear that he's gassing out...  breathing hard, gasping for air, groaning... no matter how tired I am, I'll give it a little more effort because I know that I'm winning the mental battle.  Sometimes, in a dominant position, just squeezing a little will demoralize your opponent, letting them feel your weight.  They feel how strong you are and it saps their will.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> It seems to me that boxing emphasizes strength, in addition to technique.


While boxing definitely emphasizes fitness (as do many martial arts that incorporate a competitive element), do you really think it emphasizes strength?  That's not my impression.  

I'm not an expert on boxing, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the power of a punch thrown in boxing is very much the same as in other arts. It comes first from the feet, then turning the hips all the way through the shoulders. Not a function of strength, but of solid biomechanics.

While there are techniques in boxing, there are only a very few. I'd bet that there are fewer discrete techniques in boxing than in WC. I can think of the straight jab, cross, hook, and uppercut. Everything else in boxing is conceptual. Head movement, foot work, cutting off angles.


----------



## teekin (Sep 23, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> You guys all bring up good points. First, I'm sure that we can all think of schools that emphasize one thing over another, even in wing chun.
> 
> Also, from the posts so far, I guess my first reaction is that Wing Chun might emphasize things as a policy to an Nth degree, but on a practical level getting to the point where strength, speed or athleticism aren't used, and where specific techniques are supplanted by application of broader concepts is only done at a very high level of proficiency. In other words, it's only when done at a high level that WC concepts can be seen in application.
> 
> ...


 
Steve, you did a beautiful job explaining this. Thank you. 

Lori


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> They may not be concepts that are only unique to Wing Chun .
> But Wing Chun does take these concepts to the nth degree , to the point where our forms are based on them.
> 
> In good Wing Chun the principles will be strictly adhered to , if even one element is missing , then in my opinion it is not Wing Chun.
> ...


These videos definitely articulate the concepts in an easy to understand way.  The first video looked very artificial.  The ukes were flying out of frame, and in a couple began falling even before they were "struck."  I understand that this was a demonstration, but hyperbole like this only confuses the issue, IMO. 

I also think it's very interesting in this discussion that the only real demonstrations of the concepts in practice were done by grand masters.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> This is actually a good point. I guess at their core all martial arts _should_ use leverage or correct body positioning etc, and indeed even the most stiff Karate says they do, just from experience many of them dont, or they dont break it out till your more advanced.


It comes across as training the technique to develop the skill vs learning the skill to develop the technique to me. Both approaches end up at the same place. One doesn't really explain it outright. 



> Id say one of the most unique things about Chun would be simultaneous attack and defense, as opposed to intelligently using your body, or being an internal art that relies on geometry.



Black Belt/Kuro Obi is an entire movie dedicated to the concept of simultaneous attack and defense as it relates to Karate. That's also a fairly common notion among all arts. (How it's achieved may differ tho.)


----------



## ATC (Sep 23, 2010)

Spin. That is what is being done. They take the words "concepts" and "techniques" and spin them.

All arts are based off of concepts. Those concepts are then applied with techniques that adhear to the arts concepts.

That is it in a nutshell. No spin the the plain and simple. That is why each art looks as it does. Because of the techniques used adhear to the concepts of the art. If not then you are not doing the art but something different.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 23, 2010)

ATC said:


> Spin. That is what is being done. They take the words "concepts" and "techniques" and spin them.
> 
> All arts are based off of concepts. Those concepts are then applied with techniques that adhear to the arts concepts.
> 
> That is it in a nutshell. No spin the the plain and simple. That is why each art looks as it does. Because of the techniques used adhear to the concepts of the art. If not then you are not doing the art but something different.


 

I don't agree with this.  While all arts are based upon certain concepts, not all schools train the concepts.  If you do not know what the concepts you are training, how do you know you are adhering to them?  Training technique does not equate to understanding what you are training.  Yes, technique training is important, because we must all start somewhere, but if you know the concepts underlying the technique, the techniques themselves don't mean as much anymore.

A kick is a technique.  A good kick follows certain concepts that make it "good."  If you don't know what concepts those are, how do you know if your kick is good.  How do you make your kick better?  Yes, your instructor can show you a good kick, but if he can't show you why its a good kick it is just a game of monkey see, monkey do.

The "spin" I see normally is martial artist who train in this monkey see, monkey do manner, but do not want to admit to it.  It becomes very apparent when you talk to one of the people because they can't understand anything beyong the techniques they have memorized.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 23, 2010)

I think aside from physical concepts there are also *philosophical concepts* that most arts keep in common I mean the idea of self-confidence or self-improvement through the practice of techniques I think is quite universal and but I do not wish to derail the thread if that is irrelevant.  I am just saying because this thread is interesting and has made me think which is rare in itself  Jenna x


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 23, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> These videos definitely articulate the concepts in an easy to understand way. The first video looked very artificial. The ukes were flying out of frame, and in a couple began falling even before they were "struck." I understand that this was a demonstration, but hyperbole like this only confuses the issue, IMO.
> 
> I also think it's very interesting in this discussion that the only real demonstrations of the concepts in practice were done by grand masters.


 
Well of course it looks artificial man , they're trying to sell something , they are going to make it look as good as possible.
That sort of over acting sometimes happens with enthusiastic junior students when they are used as attackers.
I'm sure even your school if it is commercial would do much the same thing.

But in no way does it make the techniques shown any less legitimate , effective or powerful.
When done for real the attacker will not fly back out of frame , they will just DROP.

The  reason I put up the first video was because it uses some good graphics to explain centerline theory etc , not to show case techniques.

Of course the only real  demonstrations of the concepts in practice ( in your opinion ) were done by Grand Masters , thats maybe why they're called _Grand Masters._


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I don't agree with this.  While all arts are based upon certain concepts, not all schools train the concepts.  If you do not know what the concepts you are training, how do you know you are adhering to them?  Training technique does not equate to understanding what you are training.  Yes, technique training is important, because we must all start somewhere, but if you know the concepts underlying the technique, the techniques themselves don't mean as much anymore.
> 
> A kick is a technique.  A good kick follows certain concepts that make it "good."  If you don't know what concepts those are, how do you know if your kick is good.  How do you make your kick better?  Yes, your instructor can show you a good kick, but if he can't show you why its a good kick it is just a game of monkey see, monkey do.
> 
> The "spin" I see normally is martial artist who train in this monkey see, monkey do manner, but do not want to admit to it.  It becomes very apparent when you talk to one of the people because they can't understand anything beyong the techniques they have memorized.


Just so that I understand, are you suggesting that some MA styles do this?  If so, can you be a little more specific?    I agree that this isn't a good thing, but the thing is, what styles exist that do things like this?  I can't imagine a good instructor who doesn't (or can't) show you the why behind a technique... in any style.  Are you talking about students or instructors who don't understand the concepts behind the techniques?


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Well of course it looks artificial man , they're trying to sell something , they are going to make it look as good as possible.
> That sort of over acting sometimes happens with enthusiastic junior students when they are used as attackers.
> I'm sure even your school if it is commercial would do much the same thing.


Apples and oranges.  BJJ has the advantage of competition footage.  I'm not saying that this is better or worse.  Just that, in most instructional videos, concepts are taught and then demonstrated, then shown being used in competition.  Stefan Kesting's DVDs use this formula.  So, in a video like the one you showed, applying the same formula, you'd see what it looks like against someone who is both trained to perform the techniques and actually trying to execute them at full speed.

As I said before, the video explained the concepts in a way that is easy to understand, and I appreciate that.  Does it work?  No way to tell from those videos.  It _sounds like it might work, but you can't really tell from the videos with the ukes flying around like they've been tazed.  Anyone who's seen a late night infomercial knows that sounding reasonable and being reasonable aren't always the same thing.  






			But in no way does it make the techniques shown any less legitimate , effective or powerful.
When done for real the attacker will not fly back out of frame , they will just DROP.

The  reason I put up the first video was because it uses some good graphics to explain centerline theory etc , not to show case techniques.
		
Click to expand...

And if that was your goal, they do the trick.  The videos are clear, but there's no way to know from this whether they're legitimate, effective or powerful.  






			Of course the only real  demonstrations of the concepts in practice ( in your opinion ) were done by Grand Masters , thats maybe why they're called Grand Masters.

Click to expand...

I've only ever seen WC in one of three different ways.  First, a staged demonstration where the actors are enthusiastic and compliant like your first video.   Second, a demonstration where an untrained person is being tooled by a grand master, like the other three videos you show.  Third, a video where the quality of the WC is unknowable and people who don't like WC use as proof it doesn't work while those who train in it vilify the participant and ask where the WC is.   We've all seen too many of these.  

All of that to say, I've never actually seen WC done by a middle level student against someone trained and motivated.  I'd love to.

But that's a little tangential.   Getting back to the idea of concepts and biomechanics in MA, are the concepts WC applied effectively only at an advanced level?  That's the question I have.  

If so, how do the students gain mastery of the concepts without any detailed instruction on technique?_


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 23, 2010)

The concept of Lin Sil Die Dar ( or simultaneous counter attack ) in Wing Chun is a little bit misleading , in the case of techniques where both hands are used , the actual attacking hand goes out a split second before the defending hand is even up.

Any technique in Wing Chun such as a kick for example must adhere to the five principles .

Simplicity - based on natural body movement , does not involve difficulted or contorted movement.

Directness - shortest time and distance are taken ie the centerline and simultaneous counter attack is used against an attack.

Economy of movement - from the Wing Chun guarding position only short sharp movements are used , efficient economical movements also help to conserve energy.

Minimum use of brute strength - This has two components in Wing Chun , executing force ( striking ) and how to overcome force (deflecting).
Wing Chun striking is not executed by sheer strength but by maximising force .
Deflection involves spreading the force of a blow over a wider surface area ,not taking the impact on one point only .
Also the opponents own force is used to his own disadvantage.

Practicality- The Wing Chun system is not intended to look showy or spectacular , there are no elaborate moves  , all the moves are designed for practical use.
The techniques are not limited in their application by restrictive clothing or confined space

summarised from my late Sifu's book Wing Chun Kung Fu - an effective and logical approach to self defence .
This book is chosen as one of the training manuals of the Hong Kong Wing Chun association.

The thing is if your teaching a Wing Chun technique and it does not comply with these principles then you are not teaching Wing Chun , its as simple as that.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 23, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Apples and oranges. BJJ has the advantage of competition footage. I'm not saying that this is better or worse. Just that, in most instructional videos, concepts are taught and then demonstrated, then shown being used in competition. Stefan Kesting's DVDs use this formula. So, in a video like the one you showed, applying the same formula, you'd see what it looks like against someone who is both trained to perform the techniques and actually trying to execute them at full speed.
> 
> As I said before, the video explained the concepts in a way that is easy to understand, and I appreciate that. Does it work? No way to tell from those videos. It _sounds like it might work, but you can't really tell from the videos with the ukes flying around like they've been tazed. Anyone who's seen a late night infomercial knows that sounding reasonable and being reasonable aren't always the same thing. And if that was your goal, they do the trick. The videos are clear, but there's no way to know from this whether they're legitimate, effective or powerful. I've only ever seen WC in one of three different ways. First, a staged demonstration where the actors are enthusiastic and compliant like your first video. Second, a demonstration where an untrained person is being tooled by a grand master, like the other three videos you show. Third, a video where the quality of the WC is unknowable and people who don't like WC use as proof it doesn't work while those who train in it vilify the participant and ask where the WC is. We've all seen too many of these.
> 
> ...


_

 Bjj does have an advantage in demos , in that techniques can be taken to right to edge , either breaking someones arm or stopping just short , or choking someone out or leeting them tap out .

But I can assure you that if you were hit for real by my late Sifu Jim Fung or Sigung Tsui Seung Tin you would be dead , end of story.
I have felt the power of these men and I was neither compliant or unsceptical if that is a word.

Wing Chun people don't give a rats **** about competition , all that matters is it works down the pub when some prick is trying to shove a schooner glass into your face.

My master said if you want to test your Wing Chun go to any of the pubs in Sydney and start a few fights._


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Bjj does have an advantage in demos , in that techniques can be taken to right to edge , either breaking someones arm or stopping just short , or choking someone out or leeting them tap out .
> 
> *But I can assure you that if you were hit for real by my late Sifu Jim Fung or Sigung Tsui Seung Tin you would be dead , end of story.
> I have felt the power of these men and I was neither compliant or unsceptical if that is a word.*
> ...


The bolded part may or may not be true.  Who knows what your late sifu could do?  Not me.  

What I'd like to know is whether everyone your late sifu taught could apply the concepts without technique?  Or could apply the concepts proficiently at all?   

I'm trying to get at this idea that was put forth that WC is different from other martial arts styles because it has no techniques and focuses instead on application of concepts.  How many of your late sifu's students actually applied the concepts?  Were these students only his most advanced?  If so, what then, did the rest of his students do?

Honestly, whether WC works at all anywhere isn't the point of this thread.  I'll take your word for it, if you say it works at the pub...  doesn't really matter to me either way.  

But you've said that WC is about concepts over technique and that this distinguishes WC from other arts.  I don't see it.  I'm hoping you can clear it up for me.  

Let's step back to this.  Boxing was brought up, and I said that Western Boxing has fewer discrete techniques than WC.  I listed the four that I could think of: hook, cross, uppercut, jab.  Boxing would seem to me to be even more of a "concepts to the nth degree" style than WC in that everything else is conceptual.  Do you disagree?  If so, how so?


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 23, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Just so that I understand, are you suggesting that some MA styles do this? If so, can you be a little more specific? I agree that this isn't a good thing, but the thing is, what styles exist that do things like this? I can't imagine a good instructor who doesn't (or can't) show you the why behind a technique... in any style. Are you talking about students or instructors who don't understand the concepts behind the techniques?


 

I cannot comment on all styles and how they train as I've not trained all styles and even among the same style, training will vary.  I can say _that *most* _martial artist that I meet train in a monkey see monkey do manner with no blue print for the system they are training.  I doubt this is systemic, but rather just the way certain instructors are trained themselves.  Going back to the example of the kick, is a person trained from the start what makes a good kick or are they told to just practice the kick over and over again until thier kick is good?  There is a difference between understanding what and why you are performing something in a certain way and just doing it that way because your instructor said this is the way to do it.  Another thing to remember about concepts and principles in a system is that in runs true through the entire system.  What makes that kick good is also what makes that punch good.  If it doesn't work for one or the other then it isn't a solid concept or principle.  I also see this quite a bit.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I cannot comment on all styles and how they train as I've not trained all styles and even among the same style, training will vary.  I can say _that *most* _martial artist that I meet train in a monkey see monkey do manner with no blue print for the system they are training.  I doubt this is systemic, but rather just the way certain instructors are trained themselves.  Going back to the example of the kick, is a person trained from the start what makes a good kick or are they told to just practice the kick over and over again until thier kick is good?  There is a difference between understanding what and why you are performing something in a certain way and just doing it that way because your instructor said this is the way to do it.  Another thing to remember about concepts and principles in a system is that in runs true through the entire system.  What makes that kick good is also what makes that punch good.  If it doesn't work for one or the other then it isn't a solid concept or principle.  I also see this quite a bit.


Which is it?  You say that you can't speak for all styles, but you seem pretty comfortable doing just that, albeit in a very nonspecific, abstract manner.  Perhaps if you were a little more specific, someone on the board with direct experience with that style could elaborate.  You mention kicking and punching, so clearly you have a striking art in mind.  TKD?  Karate?  Muay Thai?  Are any of these trained in a monkey see/monkey do manner?  

In your experience, which martial artists train in a monkey see, monkey do manner?  How is this different from what you do?  Do new students in Wing Chun not functionally mimic their teachers?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 24, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> The bolded part may or may not be true. Who knows what your late sifu could do? Not me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well they do have less techniques mainly because they don't have to worry about their shins being fractured and kicked out from under them , so straight away you don't have to worry about any leg jamming or leg deflection techniques.

Our principles have meaning to us within the context and frame work of Wing Chun.
As I said in another thread a boxer maybe relaxed , but its not going to mean the same relaxed as a Wing Chun person who maintains the angle in their arm and lets the joint rotate from the shoulder joint.

Or a boxer may even have economy of movement , but in Wing Chun it means the hands rarely leave the centerline , and all attack and defence is executed on that line.

What maybe one mans economy of movement maybe another mans wasted motion.

The principals in Wing Chun mainly all relate back to the use of the centerline , and to my knowledge I don't know of any other art that religiously sticks to the centerline as Wing Chun does.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I cannot comment on all styles and how they train as I've not trained all styles and even among the same style, training will vary. I can say _that *most* _martial artist that I meet train in a monkey see monkey do manner with no blue print for the system they are training. I doubt this is systemic, but rather just the way certain instructors are trained themselves. Going back to the example of the kick, is a person trained from the start what makes a good kick or are they told to just practice the kick over and over again until thier kick is good? There is a difference between understanding what and why you are performing something in a certain way and just doing it that way because your instructor said this is the way to do it. Another thing to remember about concepts and principles in a system is that in runs true through the entire system. What makes that kick good is also what makes that punch good. If it doesn't work for one or the other then it isn't a solid concept or principle. I also see this quite a bit.


 
i agree with this to a extent. often the why may not be told just the do. If the why isn't told then it is harder for a student to understand the premise of what they are doing. Either way you are copying a instructor. That is the best example and easiest way to explain the movement. But the student that understands the premise of what they are doing will gain much more than the one just copying what they see. That same premise transfers to other things, and even greater understanding so the student can think for themself and apply it better overall. The latter is copying, and possibly only copying, so to a extent may suffer later on in applying concepts in new ways independently. Also as they progress they may be missing the vital understanding of how it fits together. The difference between going from one movement to the next and from understanding one movement to the next.

similiar to reading a book in another language i suppose. you read a book and dont understand the words you may still be able to copy the book. You could copy it word for word if you chose writing it down identical. But you still wont understand the book.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 24, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> The bolded part may or may not be true. Who knows what your late sifu could do? Not me.
> 
> What I'd like to know is whether everyone your late sifu taught could apply the concepts without technique? Or could apply the concepts proficiently at all?
> 
> ...


 
Just to clarify I think you may have got me mistaken with Chinaboxer , I think he was going on about concepts over techniques.
What I keep banging on about is that any technique in Wing Chun must comply with the five principles or it is not proper Wing Chun.

We have techniques for sure , they"re all in the three empty hand forms , the wooden dummy form , and the two weapons forms.
The same movement in any form can have multiple applications , the three core techniques would be the Fook Sau , the Tan Sau , and the Bong Sau .
They all have multiple uses against any attack , so instead of having a block for this and another block for that , the deflections are all slight permutations of those core hand structures.

 Junior students are taught to put into practice the hand structures and work on their attributes through the process of Chi sau.

It is a kind of laboratory where they experiment with techniques , work on their structure and stance , learn to collapse their partners structure and hopefully make their mistakes in Chi sau and not in the street.

That is probably the main way the structure , techniques , and stance are developed along with the practice of the forms.
In our lineage they also practice against random arm and leg attacks , grabs etc , but this is just applying the same hand structures they learn and execute in Chi sau at a different range , from futher out , that of the non contact range.

Working at a difficult range , close range , where the eyes cannot be relied upon , as reflexes from the eyes to the brain and then to the muscles telling them to activate are far to slow , by that time you have already been hit.

Reflexes must be hardwired to react spontaneously by the sense of touch , this takes many years to bring to a sophisticate level and many hours spent practicing Chi Sau.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 24, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I've been mulling this over for a few weeks now, based on a thread going on in the CMA forums on Wing Chun concepts. The gist of some of the early comments in that thread were that Wing Chun is based upon concepts and not techniques. That this made WC unique. Another was that WC focused on body positioning, leverage and biomechanics over strength.



Nope, The whole point of ninpo (and the difference with e.g. jujutsu styles) are the underlying concepts, and not the techniques. And this is true for most koryu. The concepts are everything.

Strength is important in all arts, but not more so than biomechanics, leverage, positioning etc. Even pro wrestling (which I have classified as a martial art) relies on positioning and biomechanics, rather than just strength.

So whoever was telling you that has been drinking too much of the CMA koolaid.


----------



## frank raud (Sep 24, 2010)

Someone commented that wing Chun works from the centerline more than any other art. To my limited knowledge, that is/seems correct.

I believe the arts all are based on concepts. at some point, someone defined what a particular art is. Is this a grappling system, is it kick oriented, does it focus on the use of hands? Is it all encompassing? In BJJ, you will often hear"position before submission" That is a solid concept of how things work in BJJ and other arts. You generally can't get the submission, or knockout without the proper setup. In Judo, the concept of maximum effiency, minimum effort actually covers the previous "position before submission" without the specific detail. That is I think a very important part.

It is generally easier to explain something via features and benefits, than explaining the underlying principles. I know as a salesman, it is easier to explain to someone why a feature of a product will be advantageous to a customer, and that selling a concept to a customer is usually harder. 

While most arts are obviusly based on concepts and principles, the teacher/instructor may not have the capability to explain the concepts as easily as he can explain the techniques. Does that make the concepts disappear? No. But the emphasis behind teaching may change after a generation or two.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 24, 2010)

Hmm. Well, let's see if I can add a bit to this. Might take a little bit, though....

I've spoken a number of times about what a martial art actually is (not it's techniques, but it's underlying, or guiding philosophy), and how that reality of what a martial art is is really what makes one art different, or unique, when compared to another, particularly when there is a great deal of similarity in the arts themselves (superficially). And I think that a number of people here have gotten a fair bit of what I mean by that. However, there is still a degree of "old" thinking colouring this description. So I'll try again, and explain one aspect a little more than I have in other posts.

A martial art is not it's techniques, or it's training methods, or it's weapons, or it's ranges, or it's rule-sets, or anything similar. A martial art is an expression of an underlying, or guiding philosophy. A philosophy is really just a collection of beliefs and values which hold an internal consitency, or congruency, and are interlinked together. These beliefs and values then get expressed in a physical form, for martial arts taking the form of combative techniques and training methodologies. Psychologically speaking, these would be the "behaviours" of the "personality" of the art (the underlying philosophy giving decision making approaches to differing situations).

Now, I've spoken about how this philosophy can be social, cultural, economic, personal, spiritual etc, lending to the methods of the art itself, and it seems that most take that to mean the techniques. And while that is true, it's only part of it. The other aspect that is highly dependant on the philosophy is it's training methodologies themselves. For Koryu, that means a structured kata-based training method, with the techniques not changing in order to maintain the lessons the way they are intended to be transmitted, rather than allow the personality of a particular instructor "colour" the art and the lessons it has to teach. For competitive arts, that means a high emphasis on testing in a competitive arena, and training methods geared towards that (conditioning drills, sparring etc).

When it comes to an art such as Wing Chun, while all arts are based in the concepts that structure the systems themselves, they demonstrate and transmit them in different ways (Koryu kata transmitting the concepts by maintaining the methods that best encapsulate them, for example, which may be seen as being based more in "technique", although that really is missing why the training is the way it is). Wing Chun, due to it's guiding philosophy, has it's training methodologies dictated by that philosophy, and that philosophy says that the art is taught by constantly new expressions of it's concepts.

Now, another thing that may be confusing some is actually the very idea of these "concepts". I think a number of people are mistaking "concepts" with "strategies and tactics". For Wing Chun, the strategy (overall plan) is to survive/succeed/overwhelm with the concepts of the art. The tactics (methods used to achieve the strategy) include the physical techniques, such as Pak Sao, Bong Sau, Lap Sao, chain punching etc. These are not concepts, they are tactics. The concepts give rise to them, but they are not the concepts themselves.

So to say that Wing Chun teaches by concepts rather than techniques, making it unique, is completely accurate. Other arts certainly have concepts unique to them within their teachings, and concepts that help govern what those arts do, but the teaching methodologies (rising from the underlying philosophy) of these other arts are very different to the conceptual base of Wing Chun.

As to the body positioning, leverage etc in Wing Chun, well, that's again just in the way they train and teach the lessons they have to offer. But I don't think anyone can state that they are the only art that uses leverage to win.... although I have heard many arts claim that that is what sets them apart (using knowledge of leverage over strength, so a smaller, weaker person can triumph over a bigger, stronger one.... hmm, don't think I'd want to train an art that required you to be bigger and stronger in order to win! But for the record, there is a self defence method that stresses size and strength over anything else. It's called body building), such as BJJ, Judo, Aikido, Ninjutsu, and many more. It's not unique, but the methods used to express these ideas, teach them, and train them are.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 24, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Nope, The whole point of ninpo (and the difference with e.g. jujutsu styles) are the underlying concepts, and not the techniques. And this is true for most koryu. The concepts are everything.
> 
> Strength is important in all arts, but not more so than biomechanics, leverage, positioning etc. Even pro wrestling (which I have classified as a martial art) relies on positioning and biomechanics, rather than just strength.
> 
> So whoever was telling you that has been drinking too much of the CMA koolaid.


 
Well I told him that so it must of been me drinking the Kool aid , what ever the hell that is .
I'm Australian we drink beer and **** loads of it.

What I was trying to say is that the art of Wing Chun was allegedly founded by a Buddhist nun , who was already proficient in several forms of Kung Fu.

But she found that as a women they relied too much on brute strength , so she streamlined the existing knowledge into the art known as Wing Chun eliminating all unnecessary movement and exertion.

In the Tsui Seung Tin lineage that I am from Sigung Tsui advocates that relaxed muscles can tolerate greater external loads than tense muscles .

Thus the reason that all techniques are to be executed without muscular effort relying on the angles of the arms , the skeletal structure , the stance and in the latter phases of training the mind is used to energise and stabilise defensive and attacking structures.

Now whether we as juniors in Wing Chun can achieve this at our level is another thing , but it is something we strive for , keeping in mind that Sigung Tsui thinks anyone under ten years training is still a beginner in Wing Chun.

I truly believe that Wing Chun is an art in which a woman can reach parity with a man in fighting ability because of this emphasis on relaxation and structure , and not using strength.

 Having done some chi sau sparring with one of Sigungs top female students this was confirmed for me especially being helpless against an onslaught of punches that were coming in at about six or seven punches a second , now I am not slow either , she was a little taller , but her biceps were smaller than my wrists , and when you touched hands with her you would swear to god she was about 30 or 40 kg heavier than what she was.

She had this power because she was trained in the Hong Kong method where chi sau is practiced for five hours at a time , stance is worked to death , and deep relaxation of the relevant muscle groups is cultivated.

If thats the kool aid give it to me by the bucket load I say.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 24, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Which is it? You say that you can't speak for all styles, but you seem pretty comfortable doing just that, albeit in a very nonspecific, abstract manner. Perhaps if you were a little more specific, someone on the board with direct experience with that style could elaborate. You mention kicking and punching, so clearly you have a striking art in mind. TKD? Karate? Muay Thai? Are any of these trained in a monkey see/monkey do manner?
> 
> In your experience, which martial artists train in a monkey see, monkey do manner? How is this different from what you do? Do new students in Wing Chun not functionally mimic their teachers?


 

You seem to want to make this a style vs style arguement.  This style does this, while that style does not.  With such a varying degree in which different schools within the same style train, this is impossible.  Good Wing Chun focuses on concepts and principles so the student understands the art, and fighting in general, well enough to actively learn and adapt in any given situation.  I have seen bad Wing Chun though, which does not do this.  So I can't say all Wing Chun trains in concepts and principles, no more than I can say any other style does or does not.  What I can do, is look at a way a particular person trains or have a conversation with them to see thier understanding and then form an opinion on if they get the concepts and principles of thier art.

If the underlying fighting concepts and principles of a style are solid, the "style" doesn't matter.  That is just the flavoring to the training.  The human body can only move in so many ways so it isn't like a fighting arts are going to vary widly in how to address that.


----------



## ATC (Sep 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I don't agree with this. *While all arts are based upon certain concepts*, not all schools train the concepts. If you do not know what the concepts you are training, how do you know you are adhering to them? Training technique does not equate to understanding what you are training. Yes, technique training is important, because we must all start somewhere, but if you know the concepts underlying the technique, the techniques themselves don't mean as much anymore.
> 
> A kick is a technique. A good kick follows certain concepts that make it "good." If you don't know what concepts those are, how do you know if your kick is good. How do you make your kick better? Yes, your instructor can show you a good kick, but if he can't show you why its a good kick it is just a game of monkey see, monkey do.
> 
> The "spin" I see normally is martial artist who train in this monkey see, monkey do manner, but do not want to admit to it. It becomes very apparent when you talk to one of the people because they can't understand anything beyong the techniques they have memorized.


See now you have spun what I stated. You, for some reason, have added to what I said. Don't add to what was stated, this is when things change.

Your first statement in bold is exactly what I said. The rest is your add on.

Any school or person can deviate from the concepts, and as I stated if you do this you have something different, not what the art was intended to be.

So in actuality you do agree with me by your own first statement. The rest of what you state is just validation of what happens if you deviate from the concepts or mimic the techniques used in practicing the concepts without understanding the why or the concepts.


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> You seem to want to make this a style vs style arguement.


not at all.  If anything, my agenda is that the foundation behind every style is functionally the same.  The genesis of this was a discussion in the WC area, and so far WC students have been the most vocal.  I'm asking questions and hoping for answers.  


> This style does this, while that style does not.


Not so at all.  More like, "This style alleges this, what style doesn't?"





> With such a varying degree in which different schools within the same style train, this is impossible.


Ahh.  That's just the thing.  Specific techniques might be different, but largely, my belief is that the differences are largely superficial and more to do with the culture of the style and how it's trained than any of the actual underlying principles.  





> Good Wing Chun focuses on concepts and principles so the student understands the art, and fighting in general, well enough to actively learn and adapt in any given situation.  I have seen bad Wing Chun though, which does not do this.  So I can't say all Wing Chun trains in concepts and principles, no more than I can say any other style does or does not.  What I can do, is look at a way a particular person trains or have a conversation with them to see thier understanding and then form an opinion on if they get the concepts and principles of thier art.
> 
> *If the underlying fighting concepts and principles of a style are solid, the "style" doesn't matter.  That is just the flavoring to the training.  The human body can only move in so many ways so it isn't like a fighting arts are going to vary widly in how to address that*.


Exactly the point I'm trying to make.  Exactly!  So, the question I asked earlier is which styles train in a monkey see, monkey do manner?  I can't think of one.  Individual schools?  Maybe some do in every style.  But I can't think of one style that teaches this way as a matter of policy.


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2010)

mook jong man said:


> Well I told him that so it must of been me drinking the Kool aid , what ever the hell that is .
> I'm Australian we drink beer and **** loads of it.


Drinking the koolaid is a reference to Jim Jones and the mass suicide by him and his followers of the People's Temple in the late 70s.  The adults made poisoned Koolaid, gave it to the children first, and then drank it themselves.  Over 900 people died, including Jim Jones himself.  It's a common reference to someone blindly accepting questionable information, or is just out and out brainwashed.


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> When it comes to an art such as Wing Chun, while all arts are based in the concepts that structure the systems themselves, they demonstrate and transmit them in different ways (Koryu kata transmitting the concepts by maintaining the methods that best encapsulate them, for example, which may be seen as being based more in "technique", although that really is missing why the training is the way it is). Wing Chun, due to it's guiding philosophy, has it's training methodologies dictated by that philosophy, and that philosophy says that the art is taught by constantly new expressions of it's concepts.
> 
> Now, another thing that may be confusing some is actually the very idea of these "concepts". I think a number of people are mistaking "concepts" with "strategies and tactics". For Wing Chun, the strategy (overall plan) is to survive/succeed/overwhelm with the concepts of the art. The tactics (methods used to achieve the strategy) include the physical techniques, such as Pak Sao, Bong Sau, Lap Sao, chain punching etc. These are not concepts, they are tactics. The concepts give rise to them, but they are not the concepts themselves.
> 
> So to say that Wing Chun teaches by concepts rather than techniques, making it unique, is completely accurate. Other arts certainly have concepts unique to them within their teachings, and concepts that help govern what those arts do, but the teaching methodologies (rising from the underlying philosophy) of these other arts are very different to the conceptual base of Wing Chun.


I'm trying to understand here.  WC has concepts, and all styles  have concepts.  WC has strategies and tactics that are derived from the  concepts.  But then you acknowledge that all styles have this, but WC is then unique....  Can you be a little more specific?  I'm a bear of very little brain.  I'm just having some trouble following the logic.


----------



## fighter_x (Sep 24, 2010)

I'm fairly sure that the idea of concepts touches every style. Each style developed had a vision on how to best defend yourself. I can imagine that the founders would then try to conceptualize a path to that vision, formulating several concepts to reach their specific goals. After hammering out a conceptual foundation, techniques were introduced and tested through trial and error to gauge if they fit in to the scheme of the concepts. Most of the techniques,as well as the concepts were likely based on life experience, or the instruction they may have received before creating their own style. Armed now with techniques, strategies were considered to enhance the potential for success of the techniques, and by nature this led to the development of tactics to support the strategy. Of course the last level if you will, is innovation and evolution. As the times change there are scientific breakthroughs, societal changes, and ongoing experiences that alter and change the original concepts. This is how it should be change is inevitable.

Still, I think every style at its birth had a vision, a concept or concepts, techniques, strategy, and tactics. Looking at them from this perspective offers more similarities among styles than differences.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 25, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I'm trying to understand here. WC has concepts, and all styles have concepts. WC has strategies and tactics that are derived from the concepts. But then you acknowledge that all styles have this, but WC is then unique.... Can you be a little more specific? I'm a bear of very little brain. I'm just having some trouble following the logic.


 
Hey Steve,

I'll try.... 

Essentially, it comes down to the training methodology, rather than the make up of the art itself. Koryu systems teach via predetermined sequences of movement, known as kata. These teach the principles, actions, movements, strategies, and other aspects that can be refered to as "concepts", but the concepts themselves are implicit rather than explicit.

BJJ teaches by learning the mechanics of various movements (submissions, bars, chokes, escapes etc) and positioning, then trains them by applying them in rolling and competition. Again, what is in these movements and positions could be considered "concepts", but again they are implicit in the overall system, rather than explicit.

Tae Kwon Do teaches by learning the mechanics of the movements, as well as drills in application, as well as forms, and then tests them through sparring and competition. Again, although there can be considered to be "concepts" underlying all the movements, these are implicit, rather than explicit.

With Wing Chun, it teaches by exploration of the concepts themselves, supplemented with a few forms, and tested in various forms including things like Chi Sau. So the difference really isn't in what is involved in the art, but in the way it's trained (according to, and exploring, the concepts of Wing Chun); as opposed to the way other arts train, where the concepts are held within the training methods, Wing Chun puts it the other way around, starting with the concepts (or principles), and then developing the training drills around them.

Did that help at all?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> I'll try....
> 
> ...


 
Sounds good to me mate , I reckon Chris Parker could probably talk a bird down from a tree or sell ice to Eskimos lol.


----------



## BloodMoney (Sep 25, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Also, from the posts so far, I guess my first reaction is that Wing Chun might emphasize things as a policy to an Nth degree, but on a practical level getting to the point where strength, speed or athleticism aren't used, and where specific techniques are supplanted by application of broader concepts is only done at a very high level of proficiency. In other words, it's only when done at a high level that WC concepts can be seen in application.
> 
> Same in BJJ.



Personally I (perhaps arrogantly) think that [good] BJJ and Chun achieve this at a lower level of proficiency than many other arts. Relaxation, posture, geometry etc have much more importance placed on them in these two arts more than any ive seen or trained in, maybe save Aikido (ive also trained Aikido, Karate and Escrima, and dabbled in others).

That said it has taken me years to find a good BJJ school, likewise I was lucky enough to find a damn good Chun school too. Not all will place the same importance on such ideas, nor instruct it with the same efficiency. 

Chun was designed to turn a peasant into a warrior in a short amount of time and with little training. It was effective at that, and continues to be on the street today. How much of that is internal understanding versus clever techniques? Hard to say, like I said depends on the school. Suffice to say I could learn enough within only several years of training to defend myself against multiple attackers far bigger than me (im only 5'7" and 74kgs so not hard). Likewise BJJ, if you have no idea what to do on the ground versus even a white belt with tips, regardless of strength or relative size, your going to have a little nap on the floor very quickly....



Jenna said:


> And Steve you should not have started by mentioning WC now all the WC guys are gunning for ya! Sshhh you should have used your own art as example then universal harmony would be the prevailing concept!



Heh some of us do both so we dont mind 



punisher73 said:


> When you look at the top masters of a style you will really see those concepts in action.



Agreed





stevebjj said:


> But, correct me if I'm wrong guys, even within the concepts there is technique in WC.  The straight punch.  Chain punching.  How to correctly stand so that your pelvis is tilted in the correct way and all of that stuff... that's technique.  Chi sao is technique.  Technique that is driven by a higher concept.
> 
> Any question that starts with "how" is a technical question, and if you answer these "how" questions within your instruction, you are teaching techniques and not concepts.
> 
> And again, my point is that this isn't unique to WC.



Agreed. Chun is equally technique and concept in my opinion. If you havent drilled a center line punch then you will lack the accuracy to deliver it properly, regardless if its a mighty one inch punch or not. You can have all the internal intent in the world but without the capability to perform it then its irrelevant.



Marginal said:


> It comes across as training the technique to develop the skill vs learning the skill to develop the technique to me. Both approaches end up at the same place. One doesn't really explain it outright.



Yep, which is why I like Chun. I want it explained outright. I dont like mysterious layers being unfolded to me. I hate the whole "well we do that in training but on the street it would be different" or "Thats the junior way, when your a senior youll learn the true way" type of thing. I want to learn the right way right from the start.



Marginal said:


> Black Belt/Kuro Obi is an entire movie dedicated to the concept of simultaneous attack and defense as it relates to Karate. That's also a fairly common notion among all arts. (How it's achieved may differ tho.)



Yes when brought up many arts practitioners have said "oh but we do that as well"...yet strangely they dont drill the hell out of it in every class...another one of these hidden layers perhaps? Same goes for when BJJ became popular, suddenly all these other arts rediscovered their "lost" ground fighting arts...forgive me if I'm skeptical. I do agree, at their core many arts espouse simultaneous attack and defense, but very few that ive seen at home or abroad ever actually teach or use it.



mook jong man said:


> But I can assure you that if you were hit for real by my late Sifu Jim Fung or Sigung Tsui Seung Tin you would be dead , end of story.
> I have felt the power of these men and I was neither compliant or unsceptical if that is a word.



Agreed. Now imagine even a fraction of that kind of power transferred from a small elderly Chinese man into a big Aussie or Kiwi rugby player and yeah, absolutely its possible to deliver lethal (and almost superhuman) levels of damage. Anyone whos felt a good 1 Inch punch will know what im talking about.

To be fair though I would say the same for most arts (at their peak) once again. For example Mike Tyson in his prime punching you as hard as he could in the head would lead to coma or death for most, likewise a Karate master chopping you right on the carotid artery with all his force etc...very doable. Once again however I believe Chun has the means to achieve this level of lethality moreso than many arts.



mook jong man said:


> Wing Chun people don't give a rats **** about competition , all that matters is it works down the pub when some prick is trying to shove a schooner glass into your face.



Agreed. Its not a competition art at all. The level of skill, internal understanding and technique involved to deal with the average joe in a self defense situation is a lot less than say a BJJ practitioner in his national heats. This is another reason why Chun can turn a scrawny women into an effective fighter quickly, shes not going to fight Mike Tyson. If she were to I would advocate dedicating many years to the art, likewise with boxing though!


----------



## teekin (Sep 26, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i agree with this to a extent. *often the why may not be told just the do. If the why isn't told then it is harder for a student to understand the premise of what they are doing.* Either way you are copying a instructor. That is the best example and easiest way to explain the movement. But *the student that understands the premise of what they are doing will gain much more* than the one just copying what they see. That same premise transfers to other things, and even greater understanding so the student can think for themself and apply it better overall. The latter is copying, and possibly only copying, so to a extent may *suffer later on in applying concepts in new ways independently*. Also as *they progress they may be missing the vital understanding of how it fits together.* The* difference between going from one movement to the next and from understanding one movement to the next.*
> 
> similiar to reading a book in another language i suppose. you read a book and dont understand the words you may still be able to copy the book. You could copy it word for word if you chose writing it down identical. But you still wont understand the book.


 
This is an excellent point, Bribrius. This seems to be the school of " insert tab A in slot B and bend 15 degrees right" BJJ. The sequences get longer but you never learn *why *tab A goes in slot B or why you bend it 15 degrees to the right. What happens if you bend it 25 degrees?  or to the left? Why doesn't it work then????
 Learning a pile of choreographed moves and then doing them over and over again ( rolling) with no understanding the underlying principals of WHY the techniques work seems to me to be a dead end to me. A road that ultimately leads to Nowhere but frustration. I expect the teacher to be able to, (and be willing to take the time to) explain the underlying principals to me.  Maybe the bigger and stronger you are more likely ( and able) you are to muscle your way though MA and the less pure technique you must show or deeply comperhend.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> I'll try....
> 
> ...


I believe I understand what you're saying, but I don't know that I can completely agree.  I can't speak for other styles, or for every BJJ school even, but at my school we learn concepts and themes.  BJJ is grounded in concepts.  Where Wing Chun has the centerline, BJJ also adheres to this.  It's biomechanics.  The further your hands are from your center, the weaker your arms will be.  The further your hips are from your opponents, the heavier he will be.  This is very much like the centerline concept and it's taught very much in the way you describe.  We explore these principles and others, such as framing.  We learn techniques, sure.  But the techniques are constantly reinforcing core principles and concepts.


----------



## teekin (Sep 27, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> I'll try....
> 
> ...


 
Chris, I think a lot of teachers Do teach BJJ the way you describe, "_ by learning the mechanics_" of the moves and practicing them but I think many schools also teach Steve's way as well, where you learn the underlying principals of WHY the mechanics of each submission work. You learn why technical profficiency is so important if you understand the physiology/ kinestetics behind the Art, if you understand why the best schools preach Position before Submission.

Chris if all a student does is learn, or more accuratley memorise, the mechanics of the submissions without understanding the underlying principals behind those moves, then their ability to apply that submission in open Randori is going to be close to Nil. If however they Understand the  principals underlying each submission that allows that submission to be effective then they can adapt the submission via adapting their own possition to each new unique oppertunity as it presents it'self during Randori. That is the difference between memorising mechanics and understanding the underlying principals. 

Lori


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 27, 2010)

Hey Steve and Lori,

I absolutely agree that principles, concepts, or other such is required, however the difference seems to me to be the way it is structured by different arts. For example, I would say that BJJ (as many other arts) teach techniques that are bound together by their concepts, whereas Wing Chun teaches concepts that are then expressed through techniques/drills.... hmm, that doesn't seem so clear, does it? I'll try again.

I am not saying that other arts do not have concepts, or even that such concepts or principles are not part of the way they are taught. However, the way they are expressed is within the (established) techniques themselves. In other words, there are structured techniques and training methods, which are bound together by the concepts/principles of the system (what I often refer to as the guiding philosophy). In this format, there are established methods (techniques and training drills, testing methods, and so on) that teach the concepts, and those concepts should certainly be highlighted by a good teacher.

With Wing Chun, it's really just the same ideas, only backwards! Rather than teach a technique, and explain the principles and concepts, there really isn't much in the way of established "techniques". There are a few conceptual actions, and some conceptual drills, but that's almost all there is. In Wing Chun, the instructor takes the concepts first, and then develops an expression of them (technique) to teach with. The difference may seem semantic, but it's actually rather crucial to the way Wing Chun is taught. For the record, I'm not saying either is better, just that these are the approaches taken by these different systems (I tend to ascribe more to the "teach an established technique, and extract the principles out of that" approach myself....).

A good example may be to look to a short while ago. Bob was putting up a whole bunch of clips of various arts, and when he put up some "Wing Chun self defence" clips, Wing Chun practitioners said that it wasn't what they recognised. The "techniques" were certainly what you would see in Wing Chun, for the most part, but it ignored the concepts that make Wing Chun what it is, and in that way, even if the techniques are mechanically the same, it just isn't Wing Chun.


----------



## teekin (Sep 27, 2010)

Ok Chris I think I have a handle on what you are saying. It took a while, I kinda slow ya know. Here is an anology.
 Nihilism has a principal and core concept. The writting springs out of that core concept. Without a clear understanding of the principals there would be no writing.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...a=X&ei=wNmgTJOANMP98AbJi-G6Dg&ved=0CCsQ9QEwBA

As opposed to a Hiaku in which the structure of the writing is everything and the meaning of the words themselves spring out of that structure. 

Is that kind of it?

Lori


----------



## eggg1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

my martial art use's leverage and proper technique to defeat a bigger stronger attacker because we always know that our attacker is stronger and more powerful then we are and the art im taking is call bjj. i have a orange belt in bjj and im a leadership student which are like junor instructors. i also take a art the is a blend of bjj and kickboxing self defence techniques we call it ema which means extreme martial arts. so i do both because of better self defence skills plus i get to improve on my bjj self defence techniques and i believe that both striking and ground work are very important for self defence because you can't have one without the other.


----------



## xfighter88 (Dec 20, 2010)

I don't think that there is a martial art from tai chi-wresling that focuses on strength over technique. In an equal contest with people of identical skill level though strength and athleticism will probably be the deciding factor. Heck even powerlifting and espeically olympic lifting focuses on technique over strength. Better strength is the goal in them but without the proper technique you will hurt yourself.


----------

