# Is it Wing Chun?



## geezer (Mar 10, 2013)

Check out this clip by _Alan Orr_. 






If you don't know who he is, he's a British Wing Chun guy who has adapted his system to train competitive fighters. Outwardly, what he trains looks less like WC and more like what most everyone else does who come to MMA competition with a striking background in Western boxing. Some traditionalists reject what he's doing. Others are intrigued. At any rate it brings up some good questions such as, 
_
What is WC? Does it have to look a certain way, or is WC more conceptual? 

Is Alan Orr's approach an inevitable response to the dominant fighting methods of our times? Or is "undiluted" old school WC more effective, at least outside of the ring when applied as a method of self-defense?_ 

What do you guys think?


----------



## yak sao (Mar 10, 2013)

To say WC has to look a certain wey, is to put in into the category of a style. If we agree that WC is not a style, but a system, then it's less important how one looks doing it. The important thing becomes, are they adhering to the principles of the system?

Not to compare WC to religion, ( although, the way people bicker and fight over it, you would think it was a religion), but in Christianity there are certain core concepts that must be adhered to if one is to be considered a Christian. Then there are lesser points that are open for debate.

So, what are the core concepts of WC that must be adhered to in order for WC to be considered WC, and which are of less importance and open for debate?


----------



## K-man (Mar 10, 2013)

I liked his explanation and his application.   :asian:


----------



## geezer (Mar 10, 2013)

yak sao said:


> To say WC has to look a certain way, is to put in into the category of a style. If we agree that WC is not a style, but a system, then it's less important how one looks doing it. The important thing becomes, are they adhering to the principles of the system...
> 
> So, what are the core concepts of WC that must be adhered to in order for WC to be considered WC, and which are of less importance and open for debate?



#1. IMHO, _Practicality and_ _Effectiveness through Maximum Efficiency_ would rank up at the top. 

#2. Under that I'd list _Not Crashing Force_, but rather B_orrowing Force_ whenever possible.

#3. Then come the commonly held core concepts like _correct structure, straight-line attacks, adhering to centerline, developing springy energy, simultaneous attack and defense, simpliciy and directness_, etc. ...since all of these are our main methods of achieving the first goal listed above.

Now in the WT lineage at least, when the specific situation so dictates, we sometimes flex the rules of those concepts listed in #3 above (or as taught in some of the kuen kuit) in order to achieve the #1 objective of _Practicality and Effectiveness through Maximum Efficiency.
_
Applying this logic broadly, Mr. Orr could be said to be doing the same thing. That is flexing the specifics as needed to achieve the more important goal,  namely that of a practical, efficient, and WC inspired solution to the problem posed by modern competitive martial arts in the ring/cage. 

So is it WC?


----------



## J W (Mar 10, 2013)

Studying TKD, I would look at the execution of a technique to answer a question like that. For example, is it TKD? I would look at the mechanics of the kicks and say yes, that is how we kick in TKD; or no, that is not the proper way to throw those kicks in TKD.

Since I've been studying Wing Chun, though, I've instead thought about the principles- is it Wing Chun? The mechanics of the techniques could look like Wing Chun, but if they were ignoring those concepts you listed, then it's not Wing Chun even if it "looks" like Wing Chun.

I'm not familiar with Mr. Orr's version of WC, but my opinion would be that Wing Chun is a collection of principles rather than a collection of techniques- so those techniques could vary quite a bit as long as they stick to the principles. So it doesn't really have to "look" like Wing Chun in order to be Wing Chun, any more than simply looking like Wing Chun would actually make it Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer (Mar 10, 2013)

J W said:


> ...my opinion would be that Wing Chun is a collection of principles rather than a collection of techniques- so those techniques could vary quite a bit as long as they stick to the principles. So it doesn't really have to "look" like Wing Chun in order to be Wing Chun, any more than simply looking like Wing Chun would actually make it Wing Chun.



JW, you, Yak, and I all agree on this. Others would not. Many have a much narrower concept of what WC should be, often emphasizing certain theories of stance, structure and hand positions that are not even shared by other branches within the same WC/WT/VT lineage. Many seem to feel that only their interpretation is "true" and "authentic". That's where a lot of the divisiveness comes from. 

One example would be stance. My old sifu, LT insisted that _only_ a full, 100% weight-shift (resulting in a lateral shift of the vertical midline) in stance-turning is the correct and maximally efficient method of  dissolving the force of a powerful attack. Similarly, he insisted in full back-weighting in the "advancing-step" position, for example when you are advancing on an opponent.

LT's famous arch-rival in the 80s, William Cheung, insisted that _only_ the 50-50 stance was correct. Other sifus such as Augustine Fong, advocated partial weight-shifting ranging from 70-30 to 60-40. I ask, is one single approach really the best for all students in all situations? I doubt it. What matters is how effective you are in a given situation. Now considering that, take a look at the following clip. Alan's turning could be considered the opposite of what I was taught. We yield before heavy pressure shifting our mid-line and weight completely. Alan advocates not shifting your midline but maintaining 50-50 weighting and forcing your opponent to turn.






Again, he gives a good explanation, tested by his students under pressure. Does that mean he's right? No, not in _every_ case, but it sure doesn't make him wrong! I do like the way he approaches things though. More like a _coach_ than a "Sifu". Coaches are always looking for ways to update and _improve_ their athlete's performance. A lot of sifus are too hung up on authenticity and how great the old masters were centuries ago. You may hear a coach run down the competition, but I've never heard a coach say something like "This is the secret technique of the only authentic, original ...football, basketball, golf, etc." It would be just too ridiculous. I'm saying this, and I'm a _sifu!_ Not a very important one, ...but still, you get the point! LOL


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 11, 2013)

I would have to say it is , and it isn't.

When he is out of range he has something more akin to a boxing type of guard , he doesn't seem to use the classic Wing Chun guard.
But when he actually makes forearm contact and gets into range he starts to use the correct angles , and  in my opinion he is now using Wing Chun.

I think it depends a lot on how fast and how good you are , sometimes my master used to use a guard where both his hands would be in close to his chin ,and he could fight perfectly well from that position.
But if I tried that against someone fast I would get hammered , because my reflexes are slower and I need that sensory information that the forward hand provides.


----------



## WTchap (Mar 11, 2013)

Yes, principles over techniques. So keeping this in mind, I would say Alan is doing/showing Wing Chun, and training for a live situation. 

However... ... some of the techniques in our system have very particular physical requirements (which are often connected to the principles). For example, the position of the elbow, the use of forward force connected to the position of a limb, etc. Sometimes in Alan's video clips (which I like and enjoy), some of those physical characteristics get lost, and, I would argue, sometimes that results in other 'requirements' being lost too.

In a martial art like Systema, the body method and movement is arguably more important than a set technique, and sometimes set techniques aren't taught at all. Just the _motion_ that is needed. But in WC/WT, there are numerous hand shapes, supported by particular body mechanics... I don't know, I find it hard to get away from a fundamental belief I have that "Wing Tsun should look like Wing Tsun". 

If it looks like I am boxing or kickboxing, is it enough to say I am following the WT principles and therefore what I am doing is WT?


----------



## Danny T (Mar 11, 2013)

Interesting conversation. 
When I first started my training in WC my first Sifu demanded we stand in a 100/0 weighted stance other than in YJKYM (50-50) and to &#8216;always&#8217; yield to pressure. The 100/0 stance made yielding much easier to learn and perform. We also shifted on the balls of our feet yet from time to time he would have us practice shifting on the heels.


When starting to learn CK I began training with my second Sifu (who I have now trained with for over 20 years). He had me work shifting on the balls of the feet but using an 80/20 weight distribution and in time to a 60/40 and finally a 50/50. I have trained shifting on the balls of the feet, on the heels, and on the center of the foot. We yield, we lead the other to yield, we maintain; all depending upon the situation. 


After a couple of years of Sifu &#8216;changing&#8217; the way we did our movement I could no longer contain my questions as to why he keeps changing the way we were doing WC. He smiled and asked me, &#8220;Why you think I have changed anything? We are still training WC. Not all situations are the same, fighting is not static but ever changing and we must be able to adapt to survive in any situation. Sometimes we shift on the balls of the feet, sometimes on the heels, sometimes on the center. We do what we must to survive.
Dan, you have fought many times, have you done the same thing in the same way every
time? Has the opponent done the same?&#8221;


Years later when I asked about teaching a certain method of Wing Chun he said; &#8220;You are learning to become a teacher are you not? What works well for you and some students does not work the same for others. Learn to teach the individual not just a method.&#8221;


We learn the principles and to apply them. Then we must practice applying them in as many different situations as possible.


As to the Traditional or Classic WC guard; once again what is the situation? 
Put a knife or maybe a machete in your opponent&#8217;s hands and what do you do with your guard? Is the structure of the guard so important in a non contact situation that when not performed as what is considered classical one is not using WC?


There is no one way or method that is always best in all situations. We individuals are not the same; we each have different abilities, different personalities, and different perspectives. These all are factors in what and how we express ourselves.


To be practical and functional is the most important thing. As one of my higher level students stated about one of my senior students; &#8220;his form isn&#8217;t the most elegant and he is a bit unorthodox, but I don&#8217;t ever want to have to fight him.&#8221;


Wing Chun is a &#8216;Training System&#8217;. With-in the system there are several different methods. Being a slave to a particular method limits your usage and understanding of the system.


----------



## geezer (Mar 11, 2013)

Danny T said:


> There is no one way or method that is always best in all situations.
> To be practical and functional is the most important thing.



Yep. It all comes down to this.


----------



## geezer (Mar 11, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> I would have to say it is , and it isn't.
> ...When he is out of range he has something more akin to a boxing type of guard , he doesn't seem to use the classic Wing Chun guard.




When I am out of WC range, working against a guy with reach on me, I've been experimenting with a guard more like that. What's the point of holding a traditional guard (man-lo sau) when you can't yet cross bridges with an opponent, but he can still hit you? On the other hand, it's easy to transition from a "peek-a-boo" style boxing guard with both your hands held high and close by your head to a traditional WC guard by simply extending your arms along centerline as you close into WC range.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 11, 2013)

I teach a young guy that is lightning fast and doesn't telegraph one iota.
He's also taller , has reach on me and quite skilled with the feints.
Half the time I can't even see the type of strike he's throwing at me , the only thing that saves me from getting punched straight in the nose is that my front arm will feel it as it brushes past and that tells my rear hand get ready dude because somethings coming in.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 11, 2013)

I do not feel I have enough of a background in Wing Chun to be taken seriously on this but if the underlying principles are the same as &#8220;Traditional" Wing Chun then regardless of how it looks it is Wing Chun.

Beyond that I can say that in a fight, Taijiquan is not slow nor is it like push hands, but the principles are the same be it done slow or fast. Xingyiquan is still Xingyiquan if it goes at angles, turns or stands and fights, just as long as the underlying principles are the same.


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 11, 2013)

I disagree with most everything Alan Orr does in terms of WC. 

His response to most technical arguments has been "well it works in the cage, where's your cage fighter?" 

Thai Boxing works well in the cage too, I ain't about to confuse it with Wing Chun, caveat emptor.


----------



## chinaboxer (Mar 11, 2013)

Alan is a student of Hawkins Cheung, so his focus will be on developing the "body" to be able to handle pressure.


----------



## geezer (Mar 12, 2013)

chinaboxer said:


> Alan is a student of Hawkins Cheung, so his focus will be on developing the "body" to be able to handle pressure.



_Jin_, I gather that Alan's Sifu, Robert Chu is currently studying under Hawkins Cheung, and if I'm not mistaken, You study under Cheung Sifu too. And, you've done a fair bit of cross training. So care to weigh in on how you view Alan's work adapting WC to the competitive arena? Do you see it as a positive thing? Or do you think, as some do, that it demands too much compromising of WC's core concepts?

@_ Eric:_ Could you lay out one or too of what you see as the biggest problems with Alan's approach from a WC, and particularly from a HFY-WC perspective?


----------



## chinaboxer (Mar 12, 2013)

geezer said:


> _Jin_, I gather that Alan's Sifu, Robert Chu is currently studying under Hawkins Cheung, and if I'm not mistaken, You study under Cheung Sifu too. And, you've done a fair bit of cross training. So care to weigh in on how you view Alan's work adapting WC to the competitive arena? Do you see it as a positive thing? Or do you think, as some do, that it demands too much compromising of WC's core concepts?


i think that any wing chun practitioner that puts themselves in a competitive arena to test his ability to handle pressure from a non-compliant partner is a positive thing. because IMO that's really all wing chun boils down to...how to handle pressure problems. how you solve these pressure problems will be your personal wing chun. so stocky individuals like Alan will solve them differently than someone with a very small frame. and this is where wing chun perspectives splinter off into different lineages. because i am a different body type than Alan, i will agree with some of his solutions but others just won't work for me, that doesn't mean it isn't valid, it just means that we are two different types of individuals. i personally don't know Alan, but i would most definitely would like to train with him.


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 12, 2013)

chinaboxer said:


> i will agree with some of his solutions but others just won't work for me, that doesn't mean it isn't valid



As far as I'm concerned, it does make it invalid. The reality of leverage doesn't change. Those of us who are stronger, faster, longer arm, etc can sometimes get away with stuff, but it doesn't mean those things are true to the WC system.

Alan's got a very loose interpretation of WC, look at what they call a wu sao (basically an MT block, slightly modified). It doesn't serve any of the functions of Wu nor does it have the same structure but because it's "guarding" (IMO Blocking, not guarding) they call it Wu.  Having done some Muay Thai and some NHB grappling, it's not hard to see where they're borrowing from, for me the borrowing is subtracting from their WC, even if it adds to their fight skill.


----------



## Steve (Mar 12, 2013)

Eric_H said:


> As far as I'm concerned, it does make it invalid. The reality of leverage doesn't change. Those of us who are stronger, faster, longer arm, etc can sometimes get away with stuff, but it doesn't mean those things are true to the WC system.
> 
> Alan's got a very loose interpretation of WC, look at what they call a wu sao (basically an MT block, slightly modified). It doesn't serve any of the functions of Wu nor does it have the same structure but because it's "guarding" (IMO Blocking, not guarding) they call it Wu.  Having done some Muay Thai and some NHB grappling, it's not hard to see where they're borrowing from, for me the borrowing is subtracting from their WC, even if it adds to their fight skill.



What is nhb grappling?  Never heard those two terms used together like that.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 12, 2013)

As far as I was aware, the term NHB implies a particular open rule-set for grappling comps. The teacher i had used to call what we were taught that because his base came from wrestling rather than BJJ, and it reflected a mix of different grappling styles.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Mar 12, 2013)

This is what REAL wing tsun looks like.

Ok so the fella isn't using the on-guard stance. WHO CARES? If you don't see the wing tsun (chun) in this you apparently don't know very much about it.

Principals and theories guide wing tsun, not "looking" like your doing it correctly. This is how I fight, I don't always use the YGKYM. One of the only good idea's I got from my old sifu was that you need to be "DYNAMIC" with your WT. 

Fighting isn't fixed; We KNOW this to be true. So why do we fix our positions?

It's true, the stance combined with the PROPER footwork is the only way to maximize your WING CHUN effectiveness, but being effective in a certain style doesn't mean your going to win a fight. I could care less if MY WT looks like WT or not. 

It is my belief people shouldn't even know what they are looking at when you see a WT fight. It is quick, gruesome and over before anybody knows whats going on. There is no such thing as a 10 minute fight in the real world. You'll see 10 minute boxing matches, but in a REAL fight you wont see it go past 3 minutes ever. 

So the guy doesn't use Pak/lap/tan/bong? He is 100% correct. I just posted in another forum how to deal with chain punches and it was to use "cutting" punches like the feller in this video does.

This is some of the most application based WT/WC i've seen on youtube. I want to give this guy the biggest F'in highfive!


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Mar 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> What is nhb grappling?  Never heard those two terms used together like that.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



NHB is "No Holds Barred". Basically when someone says NHB, no matter what they are refferring to, it means there is no rules.

In the grappling perspective, this was back in the day when rules were starting to get established where you couldn't use certain holds (neck wrench, chokes, intentional bone breaks) and throws (Slams, supplay (suplex), gut wrench). 

When they use the word "Barred" they are referring to "barring" something from being utilized.

NHB nowadays is mostly un-common. Today it is only used in an open challenge match, and they are so rare that you barley see them. Basically, its a straight up street fight. You can gouge eyes, break bones, hit the throat and intentionally try to seriously harm/kill your opponent.


----------



## geezer (Mar 13, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> This is what REAL wing tsun looks like.
> 
> Ok so the fella isn't using the on-guard stance. WHO CARES? If you don't see the wing tsun (chun) in this *you apparently don't know very much* about it.



Actually, in my case it's that _I don't see very much!_ Some people have a much better eye for taking in and analyzing stuff. When I first watched clips of Alan's fighters, I didn't see much WC. So having him break it down in this clip was really helpful. Also, the amount of WC his fighter's apply varies. According to some of his posts elsewhere, some had already trained and fought using other styles, and haven't been with him that long. WC takes time to integrate.

Interestingly, a guy I train Eskrima under actually learned some WT from me back in the 80's. He took a seminar or two with LT and used to travel to the Bay area to train with Latosa and some of his guys. He also has broad experience in boxing, ju-jutsu, wrestling and just plain fighting. Now, much older, he runs an MMA gym and has produced some promising local fighters. Anyway, he insists that he still uses a lot of WC concepts in what he does. Not as much as Alan Orr, but similar. I don't always see it, but when he breaks it down, I have to agree. A lot of the concepts are there.


----------



## WingChunIan (Mar 13, 2013)

Before I start I'll say what Alan always says, what he does IS WING CHUN ACCORDING TO HIS LINEAGE no one outside that lineage has a right to comment,there is no copyright on the term Wing Chun and if somebody wanted to they could call their flower arranging method Wing Chun. Aside from that I'm going to go against the grain here because people who constantly spout off about Wing Chun being a concept based system are IMHO deluded. All martial arts are concept based, they each have a set of concepts, principles and rules that govern the way they fight, move, strike etc they also consist of techniques that have been built up around those concepts. If the techniques are not important to your Wing Chun then you would only ever need go to a handful of lessons because the concepts can all be learned and memorised quite quickly. Practising the techniques without the concepts is equally futile (and ultimately not wing chun) which is why students need to constantly refer back to them. So performing MT (for example) techniques whilst adhering to Wing Chun principles (many of which are not unique to wing chun btw) does not make it wing chun, if the same principle is contrary to those found in MT then one would of course have to ask if it is still MT.
The idea passed on by Ip Man and then WSL of not being bound by the system, relates to fighting. When you are fighting, you are fighting if the opportunity presents itself to hit the assailant with a nearby object and it is appropriate to do so then you do what ever it takes, does that mean that hitting someone with a bin lid is wing chun - no, not even if you adhered to every concept in the book, but it is fighting.


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 13, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> This is what REAL wing tsun looks like.
> 
> Ok so the fella isn't using the on-guard stance. WHO CARES? If you don't see the wing tsun (chun) in this you apparently don't know very much about it.
> 
> ...




My friend, you are so far out in left field, I don't even think you can see home plate.

I didn't bring up fixed positions, you did. WC has certain structural rule sets, with full capacity to be dynamic. From what I see, they are violating many of them. 

"There is no such thing as a 10 minute fight in the real world" - and how many "real fights" (LOL at this dick measuring term btw) have you been in to prove this metric? Or is your research mostly limited to youtube?


----------



## geezer (Mar 13, 2013)

WingChunIan said:


> Before I start I'll say what Alan always says, what he does IS WING CHUN ACCORDING TO HIS LINEAGE no one outside that lineage has a right to comment...



As you say, people have a right to call what they do whatever they want. If what they do gets attention, others _will _comment. For better or worse that's their right. And as long as long as folks maintain common courtesy, avoid obscenity, personal attacks, threats and other unacceptable behavior, their comments are welcome here ...as far as I know. 



WingChunIan said:


> All martial arts are concept based, they each have a set of concepts, principles and rules that govern the way they fight, move, strike etc they also consist of techniques that have been built up around those concepts.  ...Practising the techniques without the concepts is equally futile (and ultimately not wing chun) which is why students need to constantly refer back to them....



I have to say you make a good point here, Ian. You have to have _both _form and content, technique and concept, or you have nothing. I think everybody here recognizes that. But certainly some approaches to training put more emphasis on one than the other. Typically a concept heavy approach would work best when directed at experienced martial artists who already have developed good technique, but wish to achieve a higher level of performance. Some famous trainers specialize in this approach.

Personally, I started this thread largely in response to some pretty knee-jerk reactions against Alan Orr's work adapting WC to the ring. But on this forum he's received a lot of support overall. So I'm not sure why you seem put out. If the occaisional, ...or not-so-occaissional stupid comment bothers you, I'm surprised you frequent internet forums at all. :uhyeah:


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Mar 13, 2013)

geezer said:


> Actually, in my case it's that _I don't see very much!_ Some people have a much better eye for taking in and analyzing stuff. When I first watched clips of Alan's fighters, I didn't see much WC. So having him break it down in this clip was really helpful. Also, the amount of WC his fighter's apply varies. According to some of his posts elsewhere, some had already trained and fought using other styles, and haven't been with him that long. WC takes time to integrate.
> 
> Interestingly, a guy I train Eskrima under actually learned some WT from me back in the 80's. He took a seminar or two with LT and used to travel to the Bay area to train with Latosa and some of his guys. He also has broad experience in boxing, ju-jutsu, wrestling and just plain fighting. Now, much older, he runs an MMA gym and has produced some promising local fighters. Anyway, he insists that he still uses a lot of WC concepts in what he does. Not as much as Alan Orr, but similar. I don't always see it, but when he breaks it down, I have to agree. A lot of the concepts are there.



Geez,

All ***-kissin aside, you really make me think (in a positive manner) about the differeing of WT.

I plainly see the WT coming from this feller, but then again, I might just have that specifically analytical mind.

Honestly I don't like the "Latosa" stick fighting method. I much more like the Sayok (look it up on youtubel) method because it is much more realistic (to me) and seems more legitimate.

Anyways, I've been up for about 26 hours and probably talking out of my southern orifice for the most part lol. So all the best, and thanks for giving me yet another point of view to look at!


All the best! 


jeff


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Mar 13, 2013)

Eric_H said:


> My friend, you are so far out in left field, I don't even think you can see home plate.
> 
> I didn't bring up fixed positions, you did. WC has certain structural rule sets, with full capacity to be dynamic. From what I see, they are violating many of them.
> 
> "There is no such thing as a 10 minute fight in the real world" - and how many "real fights" (LOL at this dick measuring term btw) have you been in to prove this metric? Or is your research mostly limited to youtube?



Eric,

I certainly was not singling you out,  by any means; I just saw the video and thoguht into my own brain for the counter arguments I have heard a zillioion times. 

Personally I have been in over 20 street fights, with 15 of those actually being when I knew WT.

I was not critisizing your knowledge, experience or opinion! I'm not even aware that I replied to one of your comments; and if I did, honestly from my heart I meant no offense. Honestly I agree with mostly you say. However;

I believe that street fighting is totally different from the kwoon to the street.

I completely agree with the video that it is more effective to punch rather than to deflect.

Again my sincerest apologies if you thought I was in any way bashing your point of view; I do however have quite the bit of practical expeince (mainly coming from my big loud-mouth that seems to always get me in trouble) lol.

My comments were simply advocating this fellers cause. I can't emphasize enough that I wasn't actually arguing against anyone on the forum!

All the best,

Jeff


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 13, 2013)

Eric_H said:


> "There is no such thing as a 10 minute fight in the real world"



I dont know which of you said that, but neither of you have seen two drunk middle aged men rolling around too exhausted to lift their arms. It went on for ages and it was sorta funny.


----------



## Harm0nys0ul (Mar 16, 2013)

I took a look at that video and a few more videos from Alan Orr, and I would state yes it is Wing Chun.   Alan Orr's Wing Chun  is Wing chun at it's most basic.  A German Wing chun instructor shows  this very well; Grandmaster Kernspecht developed a Lat Sao program that  is the basic drills in Kernspecht lineage, is very similar to what Alan  Orr calls advanced application of Wing Chun.
It is a very effective application of Wing Chun, there is no doubt about that.
Basically  AlanOrr is focusing on the application of the Wing Chun punch and  making it as effective as possible, yes without a doubt that is Wing  Chun.
  There is many ways to  be effective in Wing Chun, and for a lot of people, the best way to be  effective in Wing Chun is to simplify it to it's most basic, there is no  problem with that, that is still Wing Chun.  You don't need to be the  most complex martial artist you only need to be effective in a fight.
So  to end, yes what Alan Orr is doing is still Wing Chun, it is not  advanced but it is effective, and that is all Wing Chun needs to be, is  effective, anyway you decide to use it.


----------



## geezer (Mar 19, 2013)

It's hard to compare Kernspecht and Orr, as their objectives seem so very far apart. In one of his monthly essays on his EWTO website,  Kernspecht has stated that WT had no place in sport competition. Orr, by contrast is keenly focused on applying WC to the ring. I don't think that makes his WC "more basic" ---at least not in the sense of being  rudimentary or unsophisticated. Rather, he has to compress the essence of WC movement, feel, and energy into a very constricted format, bound by rules, wearing gloves and dealing with very real and heavy opposition. 

That doesn't seem "basic" to me. I think I'd prefer a word like "restricted" to describe the context he's working in.


----------



## shaolin_al (May 29, 2013)

I think everyone here is somewhat right in their own way. For me the  only wing chun I have been exposed to have all shared what Eric_H spoke of about structure and rules. But we have to consider the difference we are talking about is why no one is agreeing. It all depends on if you are just discussing some concepts from a system or if you are talking about wing chun as a style/system as a whole. I agree that you can borrow techniques from many styles and modify them to your own way of fighting, even if it is for sport. It could be a tiger claw here, a tan sao here etc.. whatever you want to take from. Just taking techniques from a style and mixing them together with your other stuff and still calling it that style is not always correct. The thing about wing chun is that it is constantly changing whether we like how it changes or not, wing chun is very dynamic and it is being changed to fit a modern/sport approach, that is why it is important for each of us to carry it on to others how we would like to see it be passed on. Me personally I like to stick to the traditional with a mix of modern. My sifu geezer has always taught me to use what works while staying within the system I am learning. I have never seen a reason to need to do otherwise. Thank you to everyone for making this a great thread.


----------



## WingChunIan (May 30, 2013)

geezer said:


> As you say, people have a right to call what they do whatever they want. If what they do gets attention, others _will _comment. For better or worse that's their right. And as long as long as folks maintain common courtesy, avoid obscenity, personal attacks, threats and other unacceptable behavior, their comments are welcome here ...as far as I know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not put out at all its just a pet peeve that people always seem to see Wing Chun from one extreme or another either they say its a principle based art and the techniques don't matter or they adopt a position of trying to police what Wing Chun is. There is so much variety across the various lineages of wing chun that the reality is all anyone can comment on is whether something is correct for a given lineage.


----------



## Argus (May 30, 2013)

I'm not very far along in my training, but I have mixed feelings about what Alan presents.

I would say that he uses WC to compliment other training/systems used in the ring, and _some _of the principles of Wing Chun are present _some_ of the time. I do agree strongly that Wing Chun is a principle-based system, and that the way a technique looks, or even is performed can change drastically and still be valid. He also makes some good points, I think, about Wing Chun being "a training system." However, when you start hard blocking way off the center and chasing hands, as appears to be the case at times, I would say that you're getting outside the principles of the system. A lot of what he does looks like "big man fighting" to me, if you will, and I honestly doubt if someone of my small weight and stature could deal with pressure in the same way that he does.

There's another issue that might also be relevant, though. The problem with most competitive fighters is that they train to "win." The goal of winning in competition, and learning and coming to understand how to use one's art effectively, however, are not one in the same. If you just want to learn to win in the ring, it's much easier to learn something simple and very effective; arts like Boxing and Muay Thai are easily applicable, very practical, and very effective, and it's a much more efficient use of your time to learn to do those well than it is to learn to apply a traditional system such as Wing Chun. 

You reap what you sow. There are plenty of Wing Chun practitioners who learned to use their art combatively without sacrificing its integrity; Lok Yiu, Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, and Duncan Leung, to name a few. But I think in all cases, they were more interested in understanding and learning to apply their art than they were in winning competitions. And in all cases, they trained exceptionally hard; as hard as any professional ring fighter trains today.


----------



## Dummy (May 31, 2013)

Greetings Martial Talk, my first post woot!

My thoughts on the video are simple and if you really think about it Alan is just taking from wing chun what he feels would be effective in the *"ring"* against other martial artists. He's finding what works for him or in this case his fighters. The angles and basic principles of WC still apply.

Now for the body types i stand firmly on the belief that any body type ectomorph , endomorph or mesomorph when trained correctly can benefit from building a strong frame and developing power in the "Go" muscles , whether the individual is 5ft 5" or 6ft 2" Strength training is a must in any form of self defense. What i mean to say is that it isn't necessary for a shorter fighter to be quick and not be as powerful.

                                                                                                                 Regards
                                                                                                                     Dummy


----------



## qwksilver61 (Jun 21, 2013)

Can anyone really explain borrowing? unless you have actually experienced "borrowing" and not being weak as a rag doll,also not letting your structure break down and holding on to the center line at all cost,absorb energy all the way down to your legs...if your opponent is too large,give way, re-direct and give it all you got...of course when all else fails throat cutting hands ,palms,eye piercing,leg play ie;calf/ knee to ground,knees, kicks.yes.. size is a factor.but if you had no choice? it would be tough indeed,hey that's just reality.......has anyone here honestly had their *** kicked? I have.sometimes being on top does not mean you have won the fight! as far as styles,believe the earlier poster could be right,it depends on the individual and how hard they have trained.BTW congrats Geezer! I see you have stayed the course.Jealous, wish I could train with the Webb (Sifu that is!)


----------



## geezer (Jun 22, 2013)

qwksilver61 said:


> BTW congrats Geezer! I see you have stayed the course.Jealous, *wish I could train with the Webb* (Sifu that is!)



Thanks. But to be honest, I've spent a fair bit of the last few years recovering from injuries and having to take some breaks from training. But yeah, I'm in it for the long haul. I may never get to the top of the mountain and be a "master", but I enjoy the path I'm on. As for training with Sifu Webb, *why not?* He's holding a "Summer-camp" at the Austin HQ on July 20-21. I'm going along with a couple of students. Looks like I may be teaching a short FMA seminar while I'm there ...at least if my knee is ready (I just had minor arthroscopic surgery). Anyway, airfares are still pretty reasonable if you shop around and lock in a ticket soon. Check out the NVTO webpage and PM me if you'd like.

Now regarding borrowing the force, Sifu Webb does it nicely. As far as having your butt kicked, I've had mine kicked more than a few times. Unless you are a natural born champ that's gotta happen, right?  :wink1:


----------



## yak sao (Jun 22, 2013)

geezer said:


> . As far as having your butt kicked, I've had mine kicked more than a few times. Unless you are a natural born champ that's gotta happen, right?  :wink1:



I'd say even natural born champs got their butts kicked a great deal. They just kept getting back up.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2013)

On any given day there is always someone who could be better, faster, smarter, stronger or luckier so getting your butt kicked is bound to happen from time to time


----------

