# only ___ moves



## wckf92 (Feb 15, 2018)

Over the years, we always hear or read about how Master or Sifu "so and so" only used about 3 or so hands or techniques or moves to win all his fights. (i.e. I've read that this was the case for Yip Man, and for WSL).

Is this the result of years of training what for some is a vast system containing forms, weapons, numerous drills, ancillary exercises, etc...?

Why is it this way? Is it necessary to train all three forms, muk yan jong, and the weapons, just to end up with "3 moves" that win all the fights? 

Is it just the requisite process of having to go from A to Z; only to end up using 3 of the letters to get the job done? 

Discussion is welcome! Thx!


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 15, 2018)

That's an interesting question I have thought about before. Why learn such a huge catalogue of movements, only to discard much of it eventually or in actual use? It begs the tempting question of "why not learn the most effective bits and just be done with it?"

One thought that comes to mind though; is that to learn the system in it entirety, is to engrain the fundamentals into your own movement so well that you are bound to favor certain techniques or movements and shed what is not necessary, but you still have to learn it before you can test it and discard anything.

Some of it might be just favoring things that produce high percentage results, meaning if something works for you, then you are going to repeat it and continually reinforce it. There are 40 official throws of Kodokan Judo, in addition to numerous other counter throws and techniques. However, you see black belt level judokas win at the Olympic level with their own core of 3 to 4 throws, that they have learned work well for them, have learned inside and out as well as how to set them up numerous ways. BJJ has dozens of complex submissions and chokes, not to mention the exponentially complex setups to all of them, yet in a competition, people will lean on what they are most familiar with and has worked in the past, minimizing the risk of putting themselves in a weak position. And a LOT of time is spent working on technique with the assumption that it will be used against people who know the same things and are better prepared to counter it than the average Joe who has no training.

WC is a somewhat different animal though. I would imagine that being efficient by design and intent, it will seek to attack the simplest and most direct way possible, and it really only diverges from that as an exception to the rule. A lot of the later learned forms and movements are really just for when a mistake was made, or maybe when WC has to overcome another WC student (common at class, not so common in a real fight I would imagine). Both people cannot occupy the same space fighting up the middle, after all.

I'm rambling a bit this morning but hopefully this is coherent.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 15, 2018)

In combat in general, (not just WC) a larger syllabus of (useable,practical) movement gives you a positional advantage and detracts from predictably.

That doesn't mean you can't use your ''go to's" most of the time. It's just sometimes you can't.


----------



## VPT (Feb 15, 2018)

Within the tradition of my karate style, there is a phrase/guideline called "ichigi ichiji", or 一技一事. It's awfully untranslatable in its meaning ("one technique, one thing"), but in its essence it refers to notion that amongst hundreds of hand, foot and other techniques contained within a given style, to be effective one should only focus on a single one or a few at maximum that should be trained to the point where any possible attack would be possible to be received, deflected or blocked with that single go-to technique. 

It is simply not possible, efficient or necessary to practice several dozens of different techniques and skills to deal with a limited number of threats. The plurality of motions in a style is just for the sake of completeness of knowledge and to serve as a collection of different options to suit different and unique individuals.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 15, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> It begs the tempting question of "why not learn the most effective bits and just be done with it?".



It certainly does dude.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 15, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> It certainly does dude.


I think that is what many eclectic styles, or more modern offshoots of existing styles do - they try and take the effective techniques or movements that seem most viable or teachable, trim anything superfluous, and compile together. Krav Maga comes to mind since it borrows some fundamentals from Muay Thai, Kali, BJJ and Judo. I think the downside of that is that it could become a loose bag of techniques without strong underlying principles tying it all together (not saying this about Krav in particular though).


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 15, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> I think that is what many eclectic styles, or more modern offshoots of existing styles do - they try and take the effective techniques or movements that seem most viable or teachable, trim anything superfluous, and compile together. Krav Maga comes to mind since it borrows some fundamentals from Muay Thai, Kali, BJJ and Judo. I think it could become a loose bag of techniques without strong underlying principles tying it all together (not saying this about Krav in particular though).



Makes me wonder if some WC schools/lineages should follow suit!


----------



## Danny T (Feb 15, 2018)

What is best for one person may not be best for others.
What is best in one situation may not be best in others.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 15, 2018)

In order to simplify, you need something to simplify from.
A WC fighter should strive to get better and better at less and less. But in order to do this you need the context of the system.
My SNT can only get so good if I only know it in the context of SNT. But when I start seeing it through the eyes of CK or BT the dummy and the weapons it takes on a different light.

So now the simplification  process is not because I only have a limited understanding and I am forced to keep it simple, I now see everything from the totality and the simplification process is now more effective.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 15, 2018)

yak sao said:


> In order to simplify, you need something to simplify from.
> A WC fighter should strive to get better and better at less and less. But in order to do this you need the context of the system.
> My SNT can only get so good if I only know it in the context of SNT. But when I start seeing it through the eyes of CK or BT the dummy and the weapons it takes on a different light.
> 
> So now the simplification  process is not because I only have a limited understanding and I am forced to keep it simple, I now see everything from the totality and the simplification process is now more effective.



Good points dude. Thx.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> only used about 3 or so hands or techniques or moves to win all his fights.


A MA system may contain 40% offense skill and 60% defense skill. No matter how good you are in your Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou, you will still need to use offense skill to finish a fight (such as a punch on the face).

If your opponent moves in toward you, you put your fist in his moving path, his face will meet your fist. Sometime 1 punch is all you will need.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> Over the years, we always hear or read about how Master or Sifu "so and so" only used about 3 or so hands or techniques or moves to win all his fights. (i.e. I've read that this was the case for Yip Man, and for WSL).
> 
> Is this the result of years of training what for some is a vast system containing forms, weapons, numerous drills, ancillary exercises, etc...?
> 
> ...


Those few moves are what my instructor (and his instructor, who was my first NGA instructor) call "pocket techniques". They are rarely the same among various practitioners of a system - even between instructor and student they often vary. So, you have to teach several to find the few.

Do we need as many movements as we have in most MA? No. But yes. Here's what I mean: more moves (techniques/combinations/applications) gives us more variations to work with. It helps build mental elasticity. If you learn 3 different ways to apply a technique, you'll probably "discover" at least three more on your own - often in the moment of application.

And some of the moves/techniques found in some MA (maybe in all?) are there for long-term learning. They are what the founders and instructors find interesting and useful as their skill increases. They may actually be useless to a beginner, but quite useful for someone experienced. Or they may be superfluous to someone who is young and strong, and handy options for someone who is aging and slowing down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A MA system may contain 40% offense skill and 60% defense skill. No matter how good you are in your Fu Shou, Tan Shou, Bon Shou, you will still need to use offense skill to finish a fight (such as a punch on the face).
> 
> If your opponent moves in toward you, you put your fist in his moving path, his face will meet your fist. Sometime 1 punch is all you will need.


This is the other part. When people talk about what is used to win a fight, it's that last sentence right there. But that usually wouldn't ever have worked if one or more defensive moves hadn't worked, as well.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2018)

I’ve wrestled in far more matches than I’ve actual fights, so I’ll go that way with it...

In wrestling I learned a ton of moves - takedowns, throws, reversals, pinning combinations, etc.  Moves on my feet, on top in referee’s position, on bottom in referee’s position, on my back, my opponent on his back, and a few more situations.  That’s a lot of situations, and each on had dozens.

90% of the time I only used two or three of each at best.  So did everyone else.  But everyone on my team’s 2 or 3 were different.

Then came those odd times when something I never did in a match but practiced just worked perfectly without me thinking of it nor about it.  The opportunity was there and I automatically took it.  I didn’t have to set it up, I didn’t have to think about it.  I was half way through it before I knew what I was using, let alone my opponent.

Furthermore, training the stuff you don’t use gets you used to seeing them and countering them.  If all you train to defend is haymakers like in 99% of bar room brawls, you’re going to get caught by the slightest variation.  

Why in MA do we train the number of techniques we do?  For the reasons I mentioned.  And for the reasons everyone else mentioned.  If I only knew my 2-3 go-to moves in wrestling, if they weren’t an option or they got countered, I’d have nothing at all.  And that’s the last place I want to be in a real encounter.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> In wrestling I learned a ton of moves - ...


In wrestling, you will need to learn at least 6 techniques. 1 of each to attack your opponent's:

1. - 1st side (outside of his left leg),
2. - 2nd side (inside of his left leg),
3. - 3rd side (inside of his right leg),
4. - 4th side (outside of his right leg),
5. - front door (your back touch on his chest),
6. - back door (your chest touch on his back).

When you spin your body and your back touch on your opponent's chest, you can apply your throwing technique right at that moment. The problem is if your opponent is on your level, he may borrow your force and spin with you. The safest way is to obtain your balance first and then detect your opponent's intention.

- Your opponent's legs may be straight, or be bending.
- His legs may be close, or apart.
- His center-gravity may lean forward, or lean backward.
- ...

After you have collected your opponent's intention, you may decide whether to attack his

1st side - sweep, knee jam, ...
2nd side - twist, lift, spring, ...
3rd side - shin bite, inner edge sweep, ...
4th side - break, block, cut, ...

This way you will find the right technique to suit for the right opportunity.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 15, 2018)

We should be working to develop foundational principles that are universal in everything that we do, rather than collecting techniques.  But, learning many things help us to understand those universal foundational principles.  Then we can really understand how widely applicable a very small amount of material can be.  Lots and lots and lots of mileage from a little bit of material.

But we need to go through that process before we can really understand it.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In wrestling, you will need to learn at least 6 techniques. 1 of each to attack your opponent's:
> 
> 1. - 1st side (outside of his left leg),
> 2. - 2nd side (inside of his left leg),
> ...


That’s only when you’re both on your feet.  Then you’ve got to learn what to do when...

you’re on your knees and he’s sprawled (and the other way around).

he’s flat on his stomach and you’re on top and in front of him (and the other way around).

he’s flat on his stomach and you’re on top and behind him (and the other way around)

you’re both on your knees, side by side

I could keep going.  There’s so many situations.  And you’ll never be able to tell which one(s) you’ll be in beforehand.

As Flying Crane said in the previous post, you learn all these situational things, then they gradually become more about principles than actual moves.  You start to get a better sense of his weight and balance, and lack there of, and yours.  The longer you go, the more the moves stop being moves and the more they become principles.  When your opponent leans on you, you use that; when he pulls away, you use that.

Every art eventually becomes that.  It takes learning the moves and experience using them to see it that way.  Or maybe I’m just delusional.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 15, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> When your opponent leans on you, you use that; when he pulls away, you use that.


Old saying said, "The way that you throw your opponent sometime depend on how your opponent may want himself to be thrown." In throwing art, if your opponent wants to do something, you want to help him to do more than he may want to.

This principle can also apply on the striking art as well. For example,

- You punch, your opponent uses upward block.
- You use your other arm to help his blocking arm to move upward even more.
- You then ...


----------



## yak sao (Feb 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old saying said, "The way that you throw your opponent sometime depend on how your opponent may want himself to be thrown."



In Wing Tsun we say let your opponent tell you how he wants to be hit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

JR 137 said:


> I’ve wrestled in far more matches than I’ve actual fights, so I’ll go that way with it...
> 
> In wrestling I learned a ton of moves - takedowns, throws, reversals, pinning combinations, etc.  Moves on my feet, on top in referee’s position, on bottom in referee’s position, on my back, my opponent on his back, and a few more situations.  That’s a lot of situations, and each on had dozens.
> 
> ...


I forgot to include the learning to counter - good point.


----------



## Buka (Feb 16, 2018)

I have no idea, but one thought comes to mind. They say the average person knows twenty to thirty thousand different words, but how many do we use with each other during brief interactions?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 16, 2018)

MA is like to use the right key to open the right lock. Since there is no master key, you will need to have many different keys.


----------



## yak sao (Feb 16, 2018)

Buka said:


> I have no idea, but one thought comes to mind. They say the average person knows twenty to thirty thousand different words, but how many do we use with each other during brief interactions?



Great analogy.


----------



## jlq (Feb 16, 2018)

There have been some excellent answers given already.

I just have one consideration to add:

There are many sayings and stories but do they in any way reflect the actual truth of the matter?

In the case of Yip Man, to say that he always used this or that technique to win his fights, the person making that statement must have seen YM do some real fighting - and n = 1 or maybe 2 is far from enough to draw a conclusion.

The question is: Who has actually seen YM fight, and even been present at sufficiently numerous of these to say that he always used the same few techniques?

As far as Wong Shun Leung goes, you will often hear the story that he finished his fights with one or two punches (or sth to that effect). But did he really? There is at least one documented match where this didn't happen... 

A healthy dose of scepticism and rational thinking should always be applied when one hears certain things. Especially so if one uses this information as a basis for further speculation and drawings of conclusions.

As far as the Wing Chun system goes, I do not at all think it is very vast. It is - like any other of the (southern) Chinese - a very simple system.

Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles (I have been fortunate enough to meet a few) they all say that there is just very little which really matters, and that is what they train even at old age.

Essentially, what one will find if you look into the history of the various arts is that they are all very "small", i.e. a few basic techniques and then some concepts and strategies (incidentally exactly as the Ljchtenauer system is structured in the "Tower" manual) and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)

At the end of the day, the goal of any system which is supposed to be used for real fighting is simplicity and practicality.

And it is very interesting to note that the way such as system is structured is identical in ancient Europe and old China.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles they all say that there is just very little which really matters, *and that is what they train even at old age.*
> 
> ...and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)



Cool. Thx jlq! Yeah the it's the bolded part above that I find interesting. 

Also, I've never heard of Jibengong...is that part of your WC(?)


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2018)

*There are many sayings and stories but do they in any way reflect the actual truth of the matter?*

---Likely very little!  We are talking about fighting arts here, so naturally any stories (either 1st hand or 2nd/3rd hand) have to be considered suspect when they serve the purpose of glorifying or building up the fighter or the method.


*A healthy dose of scepticism and rational thinking should always be applied when one hears certain things. Especially so if one uses this information as a basis for further speculation and drawings of conclusions.*

---Absolutely!  But too many people like to "hero worship" rather than keep an open and a bit skeptical mind.  We found this out recently on the FB forum in that thread about Tai Chi power generation!  ;-)


*As far as the Wing Chun system goes, I do not at all think it is very vast. It is - like any other of the (southern) Chinese - a very simple system.*

---Compared to a lot of the Northern CMA systems this is true.   But compared to something like  Thai boxing or Western boxing....not so much!  Both Thai and Western boxing manage to be very effective fighters with far fewer techniques than are found in the Wing Chun forms.    So I do think there is some truth to the idea of "only a handful" of techniques known very well is all that is needed.

*Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles (I have been fortunate enough to meet a few) they all say that there is just very little which really matters, and that is what they train even at old age.*

---And I would bet that this often turns out to be simple fundamental techniques learned very well!  ;-)


* (incidentally exactly as the Ljchtenauer system is structured in the "Tower" manual) and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)*

---Small point....the "Tower Fechtbuch" is a Sword & Buckler manual that pre-dates and is different from the Lichtenauer system.  Lichtenaeur's system is found in the works by Ringeck and others.  ;-)


*At the end of the day, the goal of any system which is supposed to be used for real fighting is simplicity and practicality*.

---Excellent point.  And this is why I often question the "classical" Wing Chun training that people do.   Is it truly practical for the way people fight today?  Is this the reason why "classical" Wing Chun often falls apart during hard sparring?  If the goal is "real fighting" does "classical" Wing Chun need to evolve and adapt and keep up with the times?   There was another thread in the FB forum recently where someone posted a video of a training drill progression that was good.  It started out showing a "classical" Wing Chun Pak Da closing drill....using Pak Sau's to "enter and close" on an opponent and then finish with chain punches.  As he progressed the drill he put on boxing gloves and things changed.  His stance changed slightly so he no longer stood flat-footed and used the YGKYM.  He started using more head movement.  He even started punching a little differently.  He even admitted that putting on gloves and making it more "free-flowing" was more realistic.  When asked why he didn't train the beginning or "classical" version of the drill the same way, he really didn't have a good answer other than something along the lines of ....."I've been doing this long enough that I can adapt things as needed."   He totally missed the point I was trying to make.  If you are truly training a "simple and practical" system....shouldn't you "train the way you fight and fight the  way you train"?????   Why have one set of mechanics you use when doing "classical" training and a (even if slightly) different set of mechanics you use when actually fighting or sparring?   That is not my definition of "simple" or "practical"!!!!    I can say from experience that in the FMA training I have done, this is not the case!   In the FMA styles I have trained they have an eye for practicality and application from the moment they put a weapon in the hand of a beginner!  

---Sorry for the little rant.   Just a recurrent topic that I have been thinking about a lot recently again.  ;-)


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 17, 2018)

This topic had me thinking about our WSL VT folks. Comparatively speaking, they seem to focus on the punch whereas most other WC focus's on a lot more hands/tools. They appear to train hard on perfecting the punch, making it a multi-use tool (offense contained defense) while emphasizing footwork, etc. 
Wish they were still around to comment but haven't heard from them in a while...


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> This topic had me thinking about our WSL VT folks. Comparatively speaking, they seem to focus on the punch whereas most other WC focus's on a lot more hands/tools. They appear to train hard on perfecting the punch, making it a multi-use tool (offense contained defense) while emphasizing footwork, etc.
> Wish they were still around to comment but haven't heard from them in a while...



I thought of them as well!  I recalled one discussion that was all about how WSLVT was so simple, not about applications, and only about the punch.  I asked about the dummy form.  I was told the WSLVT dummy form does not teach technique applications at all...it still just teaches the strategies for the punch.  So I commented that it sure seems contradictory to the idea of being "simple and efficient" to have a systems with 3 empty hand forms and a dummy form to teach how to land a simple punch.  That seems rather redundant to me!  I don't recall the response to that point being a very happy or good one!  ;-)


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

KPM,

first.

Yes, you are correct, I actually had the HS 3227a, not the HS I.33 in mind. Thanks for pointing out mistake.


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

Either way, though... Whether it is one or the other, my point remains the same.

They are structured the same way (not too many techniques, but certain concepts, etc.)


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

Second.

I disagree with the idea that the form contain a multitude of techniques and that anything is superfluous and not useful.

To my understanding all is there for a reason and for a "complete" system, nothing can be left out.

The Wing Chun forms, particularly the SLT is nothing short of brilliant in that regard.

Left, right, middle - high, middle, low - front, middle back - 8 angles - 7 "points" - defense line, etc. 

All you need for short range fighting.

Take anything and you don't have all bases covered.


Third.

Wing Chun is not Western boxing, nor is it Muay Thai. One should remember that each of these styles are what they are because of the environment they are supposed to be used in.

Thus, Western boxing is very limited because of the rules of the sport. Muay Thai's repertoire.of skills and techniques is.also decided by the rules of MT competition. These rules allow for a greater variety of tactics than boxing (kicking, elbowing, clinching, throwing) and is as such more versatile. MMA provides even greater freedom and requires an even more diversified skill set.

So what does Wing Chun require?

Wing Chun is a close range fighting style and requires skills to manipulate and control the opponent's bridges and a lot of the techniques are designed to manifest the various concepts the style (well, some anyway) espouses. F.ex. Tun Tou Fau Chaam, Yat Fung Yee, etc...

If you want to fight like a long fist style, such as Western boxing, you don't need these things but why then not just learn boxing, that would be much more efficient.

Also, Wing Chun and the applications of its concepts do not extend to just training against other Wing Chun people. That assumption is, IMO, showing a lack of understanding what things are for and how to apply them. We all agree that Wing Chun is a very clever and intelligent system, I am sure, but at the same time some people think think the creators just had enough smarts to create a system to fight itself??!!

That doesn't seem particularly clever...



If you need to change what you are training in your forms, your drills and your fighting, there is a problem...

The people who think things need to be modified should consider that long fist styles are nothing new, nothing the various southern styles haven't faced before, so why does it need to be "adapted" to modern times?

In my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.

Strangely enough, it was not that much of a problem for many a gong fu brother of mine to apply their WT against boxers or Nak Muay outside of "ring conditions", even though we never did any "sparring". What we did very often though was training fighting, small gloves, a groin cup and a helmet, fighting without stopping until KO or submission, anything goes. The instructors ensured that there was no playing, no dancing around, etc. but crowding the opponent as soon as possible and attacking him relentlessly until one of the above events occurred.

If you train like this, with proper intensity, integrating all of the various Wing Chun skills, it works fine for what it is supposed to do... 

But you won't do well if you want to do some rounds of sparring with someone who is good at that.


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

Jibengong (Mandarin)

Gei Buhn Gong (Cantonese)

All styles (should) have this, although it might take different forms depending on what system you practice.

My personal foundation training at the moment consists of training with the "tang huen" (rattan ring, although mine is made of tough rubber), various forms of wall training (pressing/rubbing, striking, punching, etc.) grabbing and catching heavy stuff with the fingers, Fai Zhi Gong (twisting chopsticks) and some other traditional stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> To my understanding all is there for a reason and for a "complete" system, nothing can be left out.


Forms are a training tool. If they are replaced with another tool (or set of tools) that fill the same functions equally or better, nothing is lost.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> Jibengong (Mandarin)
> 
> Gei Buhn Gong (Cantonese)
> 
> ...



Ahh...ok. thx!
Turns out I do know this stuff...just had never heard that term before. Thanks!


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

gpseymour,

we were talking about the form containing too many techniques...

And the function of the form.

Essentially, I agree with you: If the ideas conveyed by and through the forms are preserved through other means, nothing is lost.

One doesn't really need forms as long as the theories and concepts are implemented in drills and application.


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

wckf92

like I said, just foundation training, nothing mysterious or special.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Forms are a training tool.


Forms are teaching/learning tool. It's not a training tool. Partner drills and solo drills are training tool.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Forms are teaching/learning tool. It's not a training tool. Partner drills and solo drills are training tool.


I disagree.  Forms are an excellent training tool.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> One doesn't really need forms as long as the theories and concepts are implemented in drills and application.



As in stuff like san sau or san sik (or however it is spelled)?


----------



## marques (Feb 17, 2018)

I don't know anything about WC, but I was also told to 'KO' (finish) in about 3 moves.

In fact, we need only 1 good hit for the knockout and, assuming the opponent is not asleep, 1-2 for creating a sure opportunity. Or 1 for the opening, 1 for KO, 1 for confirmation. If we need more, things are not going well... It means we are weak, or the opponent quite good and we are losing our opportunity.

But it was for a self-defence mindset. In combat sports we have time and we should use it to our advantage. Furthermore, the public will appreciate a bit of show and will say a quick KO is just luck.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> wckf92
> 
> like I said, just foundation training, nothing mysterious or special.


 
Understood, and agreed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Forms are teaching/learning tool. It's not a training tool. Partner drills and solo drills are training tool.


I'm not sure that distinction is entirely meaningful, nor entirely universal.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that distinction is entirely meaningful, nor entirely universal.



I concur. I think forms are indeed useful as a part of training. They keep your structure sharp and 'massage the muscle memory' if you will.

I also like to do boxing 'forms', by which I mean just doing everything super slow and deliberately, focusing on each component of each movement. Even to this day I still learn new things by doing this.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> Over the years, we always hear or read about how Master or Sifu "so and so" only used about 3 or so hands or techniques or moves to win all his fights. (i.e. I've read that this was the case for Yip Man, and for WSL).
> 
> Is this the result of years of training what for some is a vast system containing forms, weapons, numerous drills, ancillary exercises, etc...?
> 
> ...



Basics trained properly wins fights


----------



## jlq (Feb 17, 2018)

Martial D,

using the form to develop muscle memory is an idea which can be seen from different perspectives.

If you believe that the form just teaches "concepts" which are applied in infinite variations, i.e. the moves from the forms look different in application, then using it to develop muscle memory is a silly one.

If you are not going to use the motor patterns and muscle memory developed through forms practice in your drills and fighting, what function does it serve?

There is a certain group of people who believe everything is about cultivating the punch and that the moves from the forms are not techniques to be applied. Ironically, they say that if they have problems with a certain technique in their drills and fighting, they need to go back to the forms to correct the mistake...

I find this a very odd logic and not really well thought through. But that is of course just my opinion at this time.

Another thing, doing a form builds muscle memory to do the form. If you want to develop motor skill and applicability of the various hands, you need to take out the movement and practice it a gazillion times in isolation and then with a reference (an opponent) to master it.

Consequently, as long as you know the techniques and their purpose, you can just drill them. You actually don't need to practice the forms as such...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> If you believe that the form just teaches "concepts" which are applied in infinite variations, i.e. the moves from the forms look different in application, then using it to develop muscle memory is a silly one.


Agree! There are many different ways to train from the information that you can obtain from a form.

In

- MA, there are "principle (concept)" and "technique".
- English, there are "grammar" and "word".

A form not only contains techniques, it also contains principles. If you train both techniques and principles, your training can cover much more than what your forms can offer you. For example, if you have learned "This is a book". When you train, besides you train "This is a book", you should also train:

- This is not a book.
- This is a pen.
- That is a book.
- ...

If you have learned the front kick, straight punch combo (principle - use kick to set up punch), you should be able to figure out combos such as:

- side kick, back fist,
- roundhouse kick, hook punch,
- ...


----------



## Martial D (Feb 17, 2018)

jlq said:


> Martial D,
> 
> using the form to develop muscle memory is an idea which can be seen from different perspectives.
> 
> ...


Eh..it's different. Of course I drill everything at speed, with resistance, with partners, and I spar for a couple hours a week minimum(I'm old now) Also, I do agree that if your form movements are not the same ones you actually use, training them is detrimental.

I can only speak for myself. The forms I practice(SLT/ck/bj) contain movements I do use live. The slow methodical way of training movements like that helps me, and I apply it to everything now.

Sometimes I will throw an upper cut that lasts 10 seconds or more. Then do it again, and again. And again. Feeling every muscle, every movement, every shift in weight, where the power is, where it is going, and how to streamline it more and more and more. Giving conscious attention to things you simply can not while training at speed.


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2018)

jlq said:


> Either way, though... Whether it is one or the other, my point remains the same.
> 
> They are structured the same way (not too many techniques, but certain concepts, etc.)



True!  No long forms.  But they do have short sequences of responses that show the concepts.  Much like the San Sik organization in Ku Lo Wing Chun!


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2018)

*The Wing Chun forms, particularly the SLT is nothing short of brilliant in that regard.

Left, right, middle - high, middle, low - front, middle back - 8 angles - 7 "points" - defense line, etc. 

All you need for short range fighting.

Take anything and you don't have all bases covered.*

---Here you have to be specific because various versions of Wing Chun can be so different.   Are you talking about Ip Man SLT?  Cho Ga SLT?  TWC SLT?   Most people's SLT has no footwork, which is obviously an essential ingredient for fighting!  



*Wing Chun is not Western boxing, nor is it Muay Thai. One should remember that each of these styles are what they are because of the environment they are supposed to be used in.  Thus, Western boxing is very limited because of the rules of the sport. *

---Fighting is fighting.  Its as much about timing, distance management, power generation, and plain grit and determination as it is about specific techniques.   People say all the time that "Wing Chun is adaptable to various circumstances."  So why would anyone assume that boxing wouldn't be?  It is a small step from sport boxing to "dirty boxing" or "street boxing" that most fighters can make pretty instinctively.  Now give them a little training experience dealing with a kicker, someone that tries to shoot in for a takedown, or someone charging in with chain punches and most are going to "adapt" pretty quickly!  And they still would be using only a handful of techniques that they have learned very well in their "sport" boxing.



*Wing Chun is a close range fighting style and requires skills to manipulate and control the opponent's bridges and a lot of the techniques are designed to manifest the various concepts the style (well, some anyway) espouses. F.ex. Tun Tou Fau Chaam, Yat Fung Yee, etc...*

---Now imagine adding that to the "long fist" skill of western boxing with its distance management, fast punching combinations, and agile footwork!   



*Also, Wing Chun and the applications of its concepts do not extend to just training against other Wing Chun people. That assumption is, IMO, showing a lack of understanding what things are for and how to apply them. *

----Absolutely!  Many Wing Chun schools are guilty of "martial arts incest" because they only train their technique against another guy doing Wing Chun!   But the emphasis on Chi Sau that we see so often encourages this!   Far more time is spent on Chi Sau than on sparring in most Wing Chun schools.   And you can't Chi Sau well with anyone other than a fellow  Wing Chunner!




*The people who think things need to be modified should consider that long fist styles are nothing new, nothing the various southern styles haven't faced before, so why does it need to be "adapted" to modern times?*

---I can understand why you would refer to western boxing as a "long fist style", but don't let it obscure the fact that boxing is very different from the long fist styles Wing Chun may have faced 100 years ago.  I think that some adaptation is definitely needed for modern times.  I could go down the list, but that would be an entirely different topic.   If this wasn't true, the typical Wing Chun student could step into a sparring situation with the typical guy from a boxing gym and hold their own.  But we just don't see this happen.


I*n my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.*

---Fighting is fighting.   Why should their be a difference between meeting someone on the floor in the gym wearing some protective equipment, and meeting them in a parking lot  wearing none?  


*
But you won't do well if you want to do some rounds of sparring with someone who is good at that.*

---Do you mean good at using distance, timing, and footwork to avoid that pressing barrage of attacks you referred to?  That's just good fighting.  Something that can be isolated and developed in sparring.   I fail to see why people want to separate out hard sparring from "real fighting" and say someone can be perfectly prepared for one but not the other.  That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2018)

KPM said:


> I*n my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.*
> 
> ---Fighting is fighting. Why should their be a difference between meeting someone on the floor in the gym wearing some protective equipment, and meeting them in a parking lot wearing none?
> 
> ...


There is a difference, but it's not as big as some folks think (including some folks in my own primary art). Good defensive fighting skills should be able to do okay with a similarly skilled person from another discipline, unless that other discipline hits in a gap in the style in question (like BJJ attacking boxing). Two striking styles ought to be competitive with each other, if both are well-trained. I think the issue we often have is comparing two fighters. I had a good private discussion with a member here to understand how they build fighters so quickly. In 3 months, their new fighter puts in as much training as many casual students (like those I usually teach) do in 2-3 years. And the focus a lot on fitness in that time, because they know the fights aren't likely to end in 60 seconds. And they train to extend the fight, unless they see a chance to end it. So, if someone I trained for a year gets taken down by someone they trained for 13 weeks, that shouldn't be surprising. Most of that comes down to the training level and commitment (and a bit to pre-selection - the kind of people who go for that 13-week fight prep for MMA are different). Their training to extend fights gives them an additional advantage, since we're training to end one someone is trying to end fast.

The smaller factor is the difference in techniques, but that's going to be more an issue for grapplers than strikers.


----------

