# So when did grappling get involved?



## MMAfighter (May 15, 2006)

A lot of times when i see a WC video i always see grappling involved. Just wondering, has it always been there or was it just added in recently?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 15, 2006)

A lot of styles that did not traditionally have grappling have added some, or "anti-grappling" to their curriculum since MMA got kicked off.  

Occasionally it is good, often it is a poor imitation or stuff made up to defend techniques they don't understand.

It's both good and bad, good that these arts are adapting and growing, but bad when they bugger it up completely.

Many had some stand up locks and a few takedowns, not sure if this is the case with wing chun though.


----------



## fightingfat (May 15, 2006)

Since Wing Chunners woke up to the fact that if you get taken down you get destroyed!
So about 1993 then!!


----------



## MMAfighter (May 15, 2006)

fightingfat said:
			
		

> Since Wing Chunners woke up to the fact that if you get taken down you get destroyed!
> So about 1993 then!!


and the many years after that that had royce mowing through everyone and having more ppl come forward and say "NOOO, I will smash royce, i'll ko him before he can take me doooooown!!!".......WHAM takedown GnP then sub


----------



## Andrew Green (May 15, 2006)

Basically what it comes down to is most Martial arts are dueling arts, they are not self-defence arts despite the marketing.  There may be elements of that, but it's rarely the focus, it can't be, it's untestable and largely untrainable in any effeicient way.

Not only that it is unhealthy IMO, and most people will get bored of training for an assault that will likely never happen.  The ones that never do are usually pushing that paranoid line.

No, what we do is dueling arts, everything from Judo, Boxing, TKD, Wing Chun and MMA, plus all the stuff in the middle, we are dueling.

There is a set of rules, a given environment, etc.

Even Vale Tudo, it's still one on one no weapons.  

Dog Brothers?  One on one with weapons and minimal gear.

There is always a set of rules, even if they are fairly minimal right to very restrictive.  When we train we need to protect ourselves, and to do that we need a set of guidlines.

Prior to the UFC making it's debut in North America those rules where always either grappling OR striking, not both.  

The grapplers saw this, it's easier too.  You can't hit, but in a real fight you would.  No problem, and they didn't suddenly go "Holy Crap!  You mean people can fight effectively with punches?"

The striking styles for the most part never really considered it, at least in North America.  Ok, perhaps that is an exageration, but the marketing all was geared towards "real fighting" and "effectiveness" over other things, so when a take down and tapout guy started taking down and tapping out fairly good traditionalists without much trouble it came as a bit of a shock to most of us.

There was now people that dueled using things that we didn't really allow, although we thought we could and that it wouldn't really change things.  If you got Knocked down, get back up.  Not if you got knocked down someone was going to sit on your chest, make it near impossible for you to get up, pound your head into the ground and then choke you out.... that was new...

We also have it built into our culture, you don't hit a guy when he's down, it's "unsportsmanlike"  if he is down, he is out unless he wants to get back up.  An ideal that was there, even if it wasn't a reality when things really happened.

Right back to old style Pugilism, prior to the Queensbury rules.  A round ended when someone hit the ground, they had 30 sec to get back up.  But you could grab, throw, fight in a clinch, and other stuff not allowed in current rules.

But when someone went down, rules said you back off and see if they can get back in.

What's happened recently is that idea has changed, no longer is it expected that a downed fighter be allowed to get back up and fight.  Instead a downed fighter is to be pinned and finished on the ground, at least when "school rules" are dropped.

So some people recognized that what they where doing was a form of rule based duel, and this was fine.  Boxing, Judo, Wrestling, TKD, etc.  All fine arts, all rule based duels.  Even MMA is.  Others didn't like that now people out there where fighting outside their rule base, when previously they thought they where all within it.

So, what do you do?  You adapt.  Seems reasonable to me, and hats off to anyone that admits there flaws and attempts to correct them.  Of course it is only a flaw if you mean it to be, the old rules are fine too, no real need to change one set for another.  

Problem of course lies where people don't admit that it was flawed, slap in some quickly made up nonsense and claim it was always there.  Roughly equivelent to you telling me I don't have a house, me quickly cutting a door in a box and saying "yes I do, always did."

Of course it goes both ways, for as many people as there are standing around in cardboard boxes claiming they are houses, there are also MMA people trying to tell people who live in bungaloos, condos and apartments that those are not real homes, real homes must have at least 2 floors and a attached garage.

Now we all know there are some really really nice condos, apartments and bungaloos out there, as well as some really bad 2-stories with attached garages...

Just a matter of preference, until people start claiming to have and be what they aren't, or telling other people that what they got is inferior because under their personal criteria it doesn't hold up.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (May 15, 2006)

Excellent post Mr. Andrew.

When I used to do Lee Shing lineage Wing Chun, we did have a few joint locks and throws, but quite frankly, nothing to write home about. And NO groundfighting to speak of.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 15, 2006)

In Wing Chun there is a saying that states: Never box a boxer, never grapple a grappler, and of course never wrestle a wrestler. The basic Wing Chun theory says that your opponent is cut by a line from the middle, you aim for that line however your opponent moves it doesn't matter. Wheather he was a boxer, grappler and whatever. As we know that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, hence straight punches is the fastest thing to reach your opponents. If you trained Wing Chun in a proper way and with corrdinated speed and reflex, your straight middle line aiming will allow you to have the upper hand in punching speed, bursting chain punches as much as you can. This method if applied properly, will be effective enough to finish any ecxellent mover which do slower techniques such as roundhouses and grappling, it is common sence that however good you are, you cannot be faster than punches in a straight manner towards your throat or nose. If you just get punched by 5 or 6 of them , you are in big trouble. Now Takedowns from grappler also takes more time, because the grappler will be busy trying to hold you while you burst with punches to his spinal cord area (the prohibited area in the UFC and its brothers), beleive me it's fast.

Now people who practices grappling will post to my reply saying that one punch is not a KO. Well, it could be some time a strong punch to kill a human being. Ok no problem, what about if 5 to 6 punches were applied to a vital place (note that the human center from the forehead to his groans are all sensitive).

At the same time I say that I am very frank and know how grappling is good in a case you got caught. That's why I don't beleive about Anti-grappling that much. This anti-grappling method is a contradiction of what is said by "Never grapple a grappler". It is like saying to a Wing chun guy "I have an anti-cenerline punches technique" . WT says it's effective. Well they didn't try it to say that. GM Kernspecht was a Jujitsu and wrestling teacher. At the first encounter with GM Leung Ting, he was controlled by the master easily by the theory mentioned above. I mean that Leung Ting was faster for Kernspecht to grapple him. I don't know why they went to anti-grappling, forgetting the main Wing chun concepts. Maybe because they wanted to attract people who were looking stunned at the Gracies who were winning in matches. So they said if we showed an Anti-grappling techniques, we could have more students:idunno: . I still will not say anti-grappling is bad for not causing any unfreindly debate to anyone involved from the WT. I personally trains in it and finds it great. Just another opinion from *Yipman_sifu*:ultracool .


----------



## Andrew Green (May 15, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> In Wing Chun there is a saying that states: Never box a boxer, never grapple a grappler, and of course never wrestle a wrestler.



This is definately not unique to Wing Chun, I imagine every system has this principle, in any competitive activity.

The wrestlers and boxers aren't going to play your game, they are going to try and force you into theirs as well.

This is how Royce was able to dominate those early UFC's so easily.  He understood their game, and he understood how to protect himself from being forced into it, that's what he trained to do.

They, on the other hand, knew nothing about his and had no means to defend it.

If you want to defeat a wrestler, you need to know how to wrestle well enough to avoid being forced into their game.



> your straight middle line aiming will allow you to have the upper hand in punching speed, bursting chain punches as much as you can.



And hear lies the problem, you see these as a way to attack me and keep me from being able to ake you down, I see someone throwing chain punches as a perfect opportunity to take them down.

Under your set of rules it works, under mine it doesn't.  We are dueling under different rules, don't assume the same things will work under each.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> This is definately not unique to Wing Chun, I imagine every system has this principle, in any competitive activity.
> 
> The wrestlers and boxers aren't going to play your game, they are going to try and force you into theirs as well.
> 
> ...


 
That chain punches is for beginers who can be finished by it even before bridging the gap. If you lost track you go to contact then comes Chi Sao, Chi Sao goes by stick to what comes, and follow what it goes. Have you ever experienced Wing Chun?!. It's like a Boxing with the ability to using the whole body. Now you assume that wrestling will be effective, maybe it is, but you also realize that Wing Chun techniques clossess gaps and it likes CQC way of fighting. As long as you wrestle or a grapple, you want to contact in order to do your moves. Wing Chun trainers are the best people in feeling force and contact. So I don't have to play your game as you mentioned.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 15, 2006)

Great post (#5) Andrew Green. Well written and thought out. Its true, there are two distinctions when training, self defense and "dueling" as you put it. We see this alot in my system as it is really designed to fight against other kung fu guys who will be yielding, moving, sliping, unbalancing, etc. Thats the positive and also negative aspects of our fighting. A fight on the street wont last 20 minutes...at least you better hope it doesn't. Also, a fighter on the street is most likely not going to be training to the extent we are and thus wont return your attacks in place. There is a big difference and its a constant issue to keep up both aspects in your training. Alot of martial art techniques wont work the way they do in forms because of a resisting untrained opponant...that should be fine though. Adaptation is one of the most undertrained things in martial arts in my opinion.

One other point, some systems of "standup" have trained to follow opponents to the ground, sit on their chest, and pound their head into the pavement since their inception. Its just that the mentality you mentioned has changed the way these systems are trained in some places, many in America.

7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (May 15, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> One other point, some systems of "standup" have trained to follow opponents to the ground, sit on their chest, and pound their head into the pavement since their inception. Its just that the mentality you mentioned has changed the way these systems are trained in some places, many in America.
> 
> 7sm



Yup, I think one of the biggest shockers was Royce, pinned down and overpowered tapping out Dan Severn.  All of a sudden people got this sudden shock that just because you are on top of a guy, doesn't mean you are "safe".


----------



## Andrew Green (May 15, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Wing Chun trainers are the best people in feeling force and contact. So I don't have to play your game as you mentioned.



But you are trying to, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.  what you are claiming is that wing chun dueling techniques are equally effective under MMA rules.  

And I will conceed that they work nicely under Wing Chun rules, but in MMA they do not, and everyone that has tried to show they do has been taken down.

Same as many boxing techniques and strategies do not work in MMA, but that does not take away their effectiveness or value in boxing.  What works in MMA doesn't always work in Boxing either, even when you look at just punching.

Chain punching and Chi sau work in Wing Chun, not in MMA.  Two different games, different games, don't confuse them.  Now when it comes to self-defence I got no idea which is better, it can't be tested.  Both have shown to be effective and that's all that I know.

Beyond that it is a matter of preferance, which do you prefer?  I'm guessing that for you that is Wing Chun, which is fine, I respect that.  BUT, don't assume that your stuff works under other rule sets, if it did people training under those rules would be using it.


----------



## White Fox (May 15, 2006)

I say why not have striking skills and grappling skills? They both seem to have value to me.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 15, 2006)

White Fox said:
			
		

> I say why not have striking skills and grappling skills? They both seem to have value to me.
> 
> Am I wrong?



No, you're right, but...

It depends entirely on your goal.  Not everyone needs both, nor do both make a "complete" skill set.

You can't train everything, not all at once anyways, after 20 years maybe you might gain a decent grounding in most areas, but not all.

Striking, wrestling, Submissions, stick fighting, knife fighting, staff fighting, come along / standing pain compliance, Kata, Acrobatics, Multiple opponents, projectiles, flexible weapons, etc.

There is just too many things to be able to train everything, anyone that thinks they got it all covered is fooling themselves.

It's like going to University, sure it would be nice to take all the courses available, but not at all practical.  Pick what interests you and do that, don't worry about the rest, but don't claim to have the answers to it's problems either.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Chain punching and Chi sau work in Wing Chun, not in MMA. Two different games, different games, don't confuse them.


 
If I recall correctly, didn't Vitor Belfort use something along these lines in his UFC debut?

Mike


----------



## Andrew Green (May 16, 2006)

sort of, not at all wing chun stylistically though.

He also demonstrated his technique on his panther series, and stressed not to throw more then 3 punches or so in it or your wide open to a takedown.  Only reason he pulled it off with so many against Vanderlei was because he was pretty much out and falling for most of it.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> sort of, not at all wing chun stylistically though.


 
Agreed.  I saw a tape of Burton Richardson using the method Vitor used.  He referred to it as the Boxing Blast.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (May 16, 2006)

As far as I know, Vitor Belfort is first and foremost a boxer, right?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 16, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> As far as I know, Vitor Belfort is first and foremost a boxer, right?



He's also a BJJ blcak belt, So I imagein Silva taking him down wasn't a big worry for him


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But you are trying to, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. what you are claiming is that wing chun dueling techniques are equally effective under MMA rules.
> 
> And I will conceed that they work nicely under Wing Chun rules, but in MMA they do not, and everyone that has tried to show they do has been taken down.
> 
> ...


 
Andrew, do you mean that it doesn't work in MMA rules in the competition?, is that what do you mean "regulated fight" in UFC, Pride, and K1. If that is your meaning I would say, that is difinitely true. Wing Chun is not made for the ring, if it were to be used there, you need to know what is a ring experience and how to deal with the time factor. Wing Chun was proved to be one of the best in streets and self-defence. I once asked my instructor about UFC. He told me that it works with specific rules and regulations that a Wing Chun trainer cannot adapt, especially when it comes to sumbission of the opponent. Wing Chun can never submit someone like BJJ or any MMA. Wing Chun is a pure self-defence fighting system.

Sorry again for misunderstanding. I always refer my opinions as if a fight occured in the streets and you are in the danger line (not fighting with rules and 100% free). Regarding competitions, it is completely something different you guys knows it more than me, but still isn't martial arts made for the sake of self-defence in the first place?.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 16, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Andrew, do you mean that it doesn't work in MMA rules in the competition?, is that what do you mean "regulated fight" in UFC, Pride, and K1. If that is your meaning I would say, that is difinitely true.



Yup.



> Wing Chun is not made for the ring, if it were to be used there, you need to know what is a ring experience and how to deal with the time factor. Wing Chun was proved to be one of the best in streets and self-defence. I once asked my instructor about UFC. He told me that it works with specific rules and regulations that a Wing Chun trainer cannot adapt, especially when it comes to sumbission of the opponent. Wing Chun can never submit someone like BJJ or any MMA. Wing Chun is a pure self-defence fighting system.



and nope.

My point was that all systems, whether they admit it or not are goverened by a set of rules, even if they are not laid out as such.  Assumptions are made about what will be done, how it will happen, what will be involved, etc.

Wing Chun is no different, safe training requires that rules be followed in training.

"Street" fighting is completely untestable as too what is the most effective, because as soon as you attempt to test it, you create a artificial situation, there by making your results unreliable.

It serves no one any good to argue about the effectiveness of street fighting, because it is untestable.  No one can ever be proven right or wrong.  All we know is that many systems have been used effectively, even if those systems have had a poor showing in arranged matches.

We can discuss what works in a MMA context, we can discuss what works in a wing chun context.  Those are testable.  But all we can do is speculate about "real" self-defence, because it is not testable.


----------



## fightingfat (May 16, 2006)

Good post.

WC may be effective against a thug who hits and hopes, but my own experience is that if you fight someone who wants to take it to the ground and you haven't trained anything on the ground, you're in trouble!!

There is some stuff in WC that would work well IMO in UFC. So far it seems no one has the knowledge of it, applicable knowledge, to train anyone to use it in that way.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 16, 2006)

fightingfat said:
			
		

> Good post.
> 
> WC may be effective against a thug who hits and hopes, but my own experience is that if you fight someone who wants to take it to the ground and you haven't trained anything on the ground, you're in trouble!!
> 
> There is some stuff in WC that would work well IMO in UFC. So far it seems no one has the knowledge of it, applicable knowledge, to train anyone to use it in that way.


 
From all Wing Chun trainers I saw in UFC were 2. Both lost, but I think they were almost a technition. Those thaught that training for 3 years and go to fight in a ring will make them champions. So what about someone like Royce who trained for years in Jujitsu, did they thaught they can beat him, no way .

At the same time I see silly things in UFC or K1. Who remembers the fight between *Hideo Tokoro vs Royce grcaie*. I beleive that there was unfairness in making the Draw. Royce was supposed to lose if you compared him to that fighter in that day. Now this Hideo techniques are very easy to stopped if you just stop his center and counter attack his center, he was really tensed and could be decieved easily. Royce usually uses the long route to victory by grappling, I wonder why it was a draw.

Regarding if proper Wing Chun training is needed for UFC. I will say that I don't know about this, but I beleive that whenever I asks anyone from the Wing Chun about UFC and grappling and special training, he smiles and says "Man, why do you like fighting in the UFC, what is the purpose?,fight only when it is nesseccary". That's about the UFC fightingfat.

One of our training partners went to a MMA and grappling school. When I asked him about it. He says it is good for health and stamina, but the aspects still needs real testing in the streets, rather than the ring, which is really something you need a special traning to in order to participate.

Wing Chun was tested in HK during the 50's and 60's in Beimos. Although it is also regulated to some extent, it was much more realistic in the aspect of freedom and no proffesional judge. The rule went as follows "let the hand do the talking, ask questions later". Wing Chun at that time dominated all other styles and systems, and defeated masters that were having years of experience in other arts. 
Martial art in the street is still something that really needs prove as you said, that's definitely correct Andrew .


----------



## AceHBK (May 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well put! Spoken like a true scientist. I wish more MMA people felt the same way as well as TMA's.


----------



## AceHBK (May 16, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> *Wing Chun was tested in HK* during the 50's and 60's in Beimos. Although it is also regulated to some extent, it was much more realistic in the aspect of freedom and no proffesional judge. The rule went as follows "let the hand do the talking, ask questions later". *Wing Chun at that time dominated all other styles and systems, and defeated masters that were having years of experience in other arts. *


 
That is saying alot right there but that is all speculation without actual facts.  Of course WC people from back then will lay claim to this.  Which art will admit to be handled by others in another art?


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 16, 2006)

AceHBK said:
			
		

> That is saying alot right there but that is all speculation without actual facts. Of course WC people from back then will lay claim to this. Which art will admit to be handled by others in another art?


 
NO, no. Don't get me wrong my friend. They lost at some matches but won the majority. There are some articles I read about how sometimes they lost during to the fact that they were not expercting a certain attack from their opponent. So they went to discuss how to overcome such move if it were applied to them the next time they Brawl in the Beimo. Master Wong Shun-Leung himself who won at least 60 matches without loss admitted once that he was punched by a dunking opponent who really hurted him. That's why he applied a different postion of Jum Sao compared to the Yipman one. 

Regarding the victories of master Wong. You can check articles of Sifu David Peterson who says that you can find magazines of that time reporting his victories. If you really search hard in HK, you can still get them to be sure of what I am saying.

GO to any Wing Chun site concerning Wing Chun theories of application, you will realize how they admitted their defeat at a tournament that was held in Singaphore in 1969. That was to the fact that the tutition fees were very expensive and little students could learn the concepts of Wing Chun. Well those are facts I am not creating them, check my friend .


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (May 16, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Wing Chun was tested in HK during the 50's and 60's in Beimos. Although it is also regulated to some extent, it was much more realistic in the aspect of freedom and no proffesional judge. The rule went as follows "let the hand do the talking, ask questions later". Wing Chun at that time dominated all other styles and systems, and defeated masters that were having years of experience in other arts.


 
Dude, the only public video of a beimo challenge (which you posted here) demonstrates that at least some of those guys SUCKED. Period. What makes you think there were good fighters there? What PROOF do you have?  

Until someone proves me otherwise, I´ll keep believing that those beimo fighters were nothing but amateurs, specially compared to UFC and Pride professionals. 

And, quite frankly, even I could have done better than what that video showed. Which, admittedly, doesn´t mean much, as those guys could barely throw a kick without falling on their butts.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 16, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Dude, the only public video of a beimo challenge (which you posted here) demonstrates that at least some of those guys SUCKED. Period. What makes you think there were good fighters there? What PROOF do you have?
> 
> Until someone proves me otherwise, I´ll keep believing that those beimo fighters were nothing but amateurs, specially compared to UFC and Pride professionals.
> 
> And, quite frankly, even I could have done better than what that video showed. Which, admittedly, doesn´t mean much, as those guys could barely throw a kick without falling on their butts.


 
Oh Lawyer, Long time no hear , how is everything pal?.

Regarding Beimo. Wing Chun looks very ugly in its moves. This was a normal Beimo contest between teens, not supposed to be a professional one. After all Beimo was a street fighting, not neccessary to find all good fighters to participate in it. The Wing Chun fighters in Beimo were *mostly *known for defeating masters from other styles, this also included Boxers, Japanese Jakuda and Karateka. Watching this video is not a source to value Beimo as a crap, don't you agree. Now watching Royce Gracie in the ring gets fighting Hideo Tokoro for the first time. You will say what the hell is Jujitsu. It's really unfair that the Japanese got a draw. He really hitted Royce with more than could he anticipate. Do you think that a single clip I saw will give me the correct picture of a fighting period event. I don't think so, otherwise if it is, I as a fool will consider Royce to be pathetic in that match who gets beaten badly.:idunno:


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (May 16, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Oh Lawyer, Long time no hear , how is everything pal?.
> 
> Regarding Beimo. Wing Chun looks very ugly in its moves. This was a normal Beimo contest between teens, not supposed to be a professional one. After all Beimo was a street fighting, not neccessary to find all good fighters to participate in it. The Wing Chun fighters in Beimo were *mostly *known for defeating masters from other styles, this also included Boxers, Japanese Jakuda and Karateka. Watching this video is not a source to value Beimo as a crap, don't you agree. Now watching Royce Gracie in the ring gets fighting Hideo Tokoro for the first time. You will say what the hell is Jujitsu. It's really unfair that the Japanese got a draw. He really hitted Royce with more than could he anticipate. Do you think that a single clip I saw will give me the correct picture of a fighting period event. I don't think so, otherwise if it is, I as a fool will consider Royce to be pathetic in that match who gets beaten badly.:idunno:


 
Look, I do not judge all beimos from what I saw. But what I saw was horrible, and it demonstrates two things.

1) Some people which participated in those beimos sucked. Period. So a beimo cannot be compared to Pride, because to get in Pride you must be about 10,000 times better than those two guys on the beimo video.

2) There were rules in those beimo challenges; and those rules were MORE restrictive than the rules of Pride. See, in that video, when one guy falls, the other guy not only will not fight the other in the ground, he also does not kick or knee his adversary. He simply waits for him to get up. So I would say those beimo challenges had more restrictive rules than Pride, and therefore they are farther from a real confrontation than Pride.

Remember? The more rules, the less realistic a given sparring match will be.


----------



## MMAfighter (May 16, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> From all Wing Chun trainers I saw in UFC were 2. Both lost, but I think they were almost a technition. Those thaught that training for 3 years and go to fight in a ring will make them champions. So what about someone like Royce who trained for years in Jujitsu, did they thaught they can beat him, no way .
> 
> At the same time I see silly things in UFC or K1. Who remembers the fight between *Hideo Tokoro vs Royce grcaie*. I beleive that there was unfairness in making the Draw. Royce was supposed to lose if you compared him to that fighter in that day. Now this Hideo techniques are very easy to stopped if you just stop his center and counter attack his center, he was really tensed and could be decieved easily. Royce usually uses the long route to victory by grappling, I wonder why it was a draw.
> 
> ...



Well, a lot of fights are scored without judges decisions, such as wanderlei silva vs. cro cop, I think wanderlei won that fight but it went to a draw because it was PRIDe vs. K1, i don't know why tokoro/gracie had no judges...maybe because it was THE royce Gracie fighting, or because gracie probably outweighed tokoro. And i'm just wondering.....what is stopping and countering someone's center? Also, MMa is good for a street fight, sure you don't eye gouge or anything but if some dude came swinging wild haymakers at me, i'd rather shoot for a double leg or clinch up and throw the person rather than sit there and trade punches, although since you train in a MA you'd probably whoop them standing too, not to bash you're gym or anything but you'll meet plenty of ppl who will say that UFc in useless in a  street fight ect. i use to do kung fu(which wasn't bad actually) and one of the guys there said it's impossible for someone to take you down, he never gave a reason why he also mentioned that it was the "best" fighting style out there and that he could if he "wanted" to compete in K-1....yeah, yet he refuses to demonstrate anything. A lot of people will not be able to understand or see what they are told either, there are plenty of people out there who think MMA fighting is BS, and useless. that only meat headed unskilled losers fight in there, but the truth is, it takes lots of work, it's a sport, the majority of people in there have some kind of college degree, people train in a lot of styles, ect.


----------



## MMAfighter (May 16, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, didn't Vitor Belfort use something along these lines in his UFC debut?
> 
> Mike


if yo mean chain punching by letting loose combinations of punches than yes. If you mean wing chun punches, no vitor's a boxer, but i agree with andrew. If you let loose too many punches and get carried away you're gonna get caught with a punch or takedown IE Belfort vs. Liddell


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 16, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Look, I do not judge all beimos from what I saw. But what I saw was horrible, and it demonstrates two things.
> 
> 1) Some people which participated in those beimos sucked. Period. So a beimo cannot be compared to Pride, because to get in Pride you must be about 10,000 times better than those two guys on the beimo video.
> 
> ...


 
I told you that in street, you can find any level of fighting. I agree that some fighters sucked no problem, they are teens. I saw some pictures of those two guys before the fight. They were like student trainers in their martial arts, I saw a picture of them standing near master Wong shun-Leung. I think he was a sort of coordinator of these matches to students, he himself fought the more proffesional one with masters of other styles.

Regarding the rules of Beimo. You cannot judge it's rules by watching this clip that you are objecting that it is not up to the level. Just try to search the net and find the regulation it was based upon. I told you that you cannot judge everything from a single clip, that's a fact that no one can deny Lawyer.

So tell me, where were you all this time, I think it is about 2 weeks you stopped posting in the WC section as you did before. I saw that you post on bullshido forum. Man I think that took a break to some extent.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (May 16, 2006)

Well, what were the beimo official rules then?

PS: Yes, I post regularly at bullshido. I am a bullshidoka at heart. Yes, that does explain a lot.


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2006)

MMAfighter said:
			
		

> if yo mean chain punching by letting loose combinations of punches than yes. If you mean wing chun punches, no vitor's a boxer, but i agree with andrew. If you let loose too many punches and get carried away you're gonna get caught with a punch or takedown IE Belfort vs. Liddell


 
Yes, I was referring more towards the combos.  However, if I recall correctly, the initial punches were not combos. in the sense of jab, cross, hook, but instead straighter punches.  It wasn't until he had the person on the cage that he began the combos..ie: jabs, hooks, etc.

His boxing skills certainly rounded out his BJJ very nice. 

Mike


----------



## Kensai (May 20, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That, in my opinion is the crux of the discussion. As a Wing Chun guy, I love what I do, I don't accept it IS the be all and end all, but I think that in my short time studying it that there may be one or two decent techniques with which to hurt a potential aggressor "in the street" tm, but how good would I be against some 200 pound muscle man in a MMA competition with rules, no kicks to the groin, throat strikes etc? Not very I can tell you. Then again, I'm faaaaar to pretty to risk getting hurt. :ultracool 

I think the discussion has moved off course slightly, chin'na or however it's spelt is meant to have been a more advanced part of WC, and is a Chinese grappling art, but only learnt at later stages, will I wait that long to learn grappling techniques? No. Will I take up ju-jitsu now that I'm back from my hols, yes. Will I cease to do Wing Chun and just do grappling stuff? Certainly not. There is a dangerous and equally misguided opinion that the only effective arts are those that have a background in the ring, be they Muay Thai, MMA whatever. To an extent I understand why people think that, but essentially the impression I'm getting here is that "MMA is the only effective art 'cos it's used in the UFC". Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but it does appear that way, or at least a thinly veiled one. Ring sports are great, but as Andrew has more than adequately pointed out, testing the virtues of TMA and MMA in the ring or street and then saying "that's the best" is not only a nonsense, but almost impossible to collect empirical evidence to prove it. You can say one or the other may be better in a given environment, but that's about it. So many variables, so many outcomes. Depends on the guy, on the day, the circumstances, is the fight in a ring with rules, or a fight to the finish on the street with an "unskilled" but nonetheless dangerous opponent, are weapons involved, how many people are involved, what are the reasons for the fight, what skill set are the people involved at etc etc.

I've found in most street fights that I've seen, or had the misfortune to have been involved with, whoever hits first, hardest and fastest tends to get the upper hand. However, trying that against a 200 pound professional athlete who's used to being punched, means that a wider variety of techniques must be used in order to defeat them.

Just my tuppence. 

Cheers,

K


----------



## barnaby (Jun 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> A lot of styles that did not traditionally have grappling have added some, or "anti-grappling" to their curriculum since MMA got kicked off.
> 
> Occasionally it is good, often it is a poor imitation or stuff made up to defend techniques they don't understand.
> 
> ...


 
Wing Chun is a combined form of all three major Chinese internal arts, and therefor has very old roots. All of these art forms, if you dig deeply enough, will have the elements of kicking, punching, throwing, locking, and of course chi gong. It's unfortunate, as you say, that Wing Chun schools are digging around outside their art for ways of dealing with things unfamiliar, because if these practictioners looked more deeply at what they were studying, these things would not be unfamiliar. Most Wing Chun schools teach punches mechanically, at the center line, but there's much more to it than that, what modern competitions call grappling included.


----------



## Laoshi77 (Jun 17, 2006)

Awareness is definately the key in any fight; here an understanding of grappling would be important as is the Wing Chun system. All arts will or should teach some defence as to grappling techniques, although I do agree with Yipman when he says that these are often telegraphed movements. Especially when sensitivity is such an important part of the Wing Chun system.

Furthermore, Wing Chun strikes are designed to be quick and powerful, more so than any other punch, and as someone said speed is very important.

As for the couple of Wing Chun guys in the UFC: to me they showed no skills whatsoever, let alone Wing Chun technique or principles. And I sincerely doubt they had studied anything for longer than a year at best!

From my experiences, grappling in the street only happens with people who are unskilled fighters or, one chooses to take the weaker opponent to the ground. I really believe that grappling in the street is not practical, especially against many well-rounded martial artists and it is also often a dangerous thing to iniatiate.


----------



## Street Brawler (Jun 18, 2006)

Very Interesting Topic .

I wish to make myself clear by some misunderstandings regarding Wing Chun.

1)MMA people fights in three phases. Upright, clinching, and grappling. I never recomend the third phase to be faught in a street brawl, because it can never work if you fight more than one guy. You are gonna be down making yourself in a situation that you cannot even escape from  .

2) Wing Chun never adapted techniques for Grappling. The term Anti-Grappling is not like Anti-striking as some people claims. I mean that the term seems to be weird as it is an adapted one. I personally saw that Anti-Grappling is something different. It is just the idea of lowering the centerline and use your sensitivity by Chi Sao to feel your opponent force on the ground. That concludes that it is not derived after grappling appeared. The guy called *Yipman *in here said that Anti-grappling is not a good idea. I would like to ask him if he ever tried to grapple a Wing Chun guy who trained in Chi Sao, let him try it and answer us. 

3) MMA techniques are the most effective people say. Well with roundhouse punches and techniques they are very exposed to be hit. I beleive that also in the ground. I saw many grapplers are holding their opponents hand and leaving the other. Their oppoenets are idiots in paying attension to the grabbed hand and tries to unleash it, forgetting that the other hand may be a very effective weapon:idunno: .

4) Wish you all the best, and hope that we never encounter a brawl in any turf:ultracool .


----------



## profesormental (Jun 18, 2006)

Hi!

this is very interesting indeed.

Note the follwing...

What is Grapplings, and MMA most effective and best technique?

You should know the answer... if not I'll give it in a moment.


Note also that Wing Chun does have a Chin Na element... yet it immediately transitions to striking... as in traditional Shuai Jiao... throw with a strike... strike with a throw...

Also, Yee Chee Kim Jeung Ma (basic stance to some...) should teach you how to drop your weight effectively and keep structure in a clinch and/or cheking the legs and make it hard to sweep you.

There are many grappling scenarios in the WC Dummy forms...
Yet there is no formal ground controls... in the ground you hit them...

This is somewhere that training can be borrowed, but controlling someone with the Basic stance on the ground is addressed... just not emphasised until now. The principles still apply on the ground (centerline theory, economy of motion, etc.)

Just something to consider... enjoy!

Juan M. Mercado

P.S. The best hold is conditioning... athletisism...

which declines with age...

Wing Chun skill increases with time training... so when you're 50, 60 or 70 you can mingle with the 20 y/o's and still impress and kick their posteriors! Just look at Ip Chun and otehr Wing Chun Seniors!


----------



## Street Brawler (Jun 19, 2006)

profesormental said:
			
		

> Hi!
> 
> this is very interesting indeed.
> 
> ...


 
Nice saying pal, but you forgot something.

Wing Chun teaches you how to think in the best way. It is not fixed with moves and techniques. I once remember that my sifu at a certain seminar saw a student doing chain punches all the time, so he smiled and said: be creative, Wing Chun is not limited, use hooks and uppercuts when your center is blocked, as long as you find it faster and will finish the situation in the fastest time possible. 

Now the stance is not supposed to maintained all the time, especially if you are at a pounding or the ground phase. Again Wing Chun does not limit you. You only apply this stance to protect your center in the upright position.:supcool: :ultracool 

Now MMA is good for the ring. You have to use it there, otherwise you get beaten. Why?. because it fits the regulations established by the creators of UFC, Pride, K1, Vale Tudo, and whatever . You will find also that the Gracies themselves must be trained in some striking ability to adjust the ring conditions. You know that the ring is something not important for self-defence , What you grasp must fit the mysterious street .

Regarding Anti-Grappling again. It is not derived after Grappling, it is a Chi Sao in a different situation, that's the whole idea. 

By the way, I would like especially to stand to Royce Gracie's side after the Matt Hughes issue. Upon roaming around other sites. I saw some UFC fans started to say nonsense stuff about him. They forgot that Royce was almost the best UFC fighter ever. They also forgot his acheivments and how he lead the world to know how important can ground techniques be in the game, .  Lets just remember champoins like him and his brother Rickson for the coming years.


----------



## profesormental (Jun 19, 2006)

Hi!

I agree that Wing Chun is not fixed techniques...

NOte that there are several ways to learn... and each helps the other...

make inductions from specific examples of executions... (teach examples of what can be done) and to teach principles that dictate tactics and strategy (control centerline, economie motion, etc.).

Both are valid ways to teach, and some people learn better one way tahn the other. I'm sure we've all encountered such situations.

I've argued and lectured on economy of motion, but until some of my students see examples, it's hard for them to get it... same for others that don't get it with 100 examples, but if I explain the principle, they get it right away...

so as a SiFu it's my job to instruct both...

Thanks for the observation.

I also agree that all postures are transitory, I jsut pointed out an example where I've used it to control someone on the floor and pinning him with a Yeung Ma...

I do however state that MMA training is good for maintaining Dominance and Control over opponents. It's however NOT most efficient as an urban survival method.

Fights do not occur in a vacuum. A match is a special contest. Self preservation/self defense/combat has many other strategic considerations that are not addressed in jut a match/prize fight.

Does that make sense?

So training must incorporate those considerations like environment, legalities, level of force and harm to obtain objective (dominate or maim, or worse for dire situations). or not if you're not interested...

The question is why are you training and what is important for you about it?

If you want to go around beating people up, or you want a fun healthy way to develop your skills taht will last a lifetime and may save your life... without becoming all consuming in your life...

To the Gracies, this is their life... this is one of their legacies... something admireable and something I would be proud to achieve someday... just that I'm the only one in my family with the inclination to go that way!

Remember that the Warrior in this society has a peculiar place... loathed and praised when needed... then loathed as violent and brutal... instead of practical and determined. The status as a family that they have achieved is waht marial artists should strive to achieve.

again, Street Brawler, thanks for the observations and discussion.

Sincerely,

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## Street Brawler (Jun 19, 2006)

profesormental said:
			
		

> Hi!
> 
> I agree that Wing Chun is not fixed techniques...
> 
> ...


 
Excellent saying Sifu Juan, Thanks for your kind attention :ultracool :supcool: , hope to hear from you soon on another topic.


----------



## Si-Je (Sep 19, 2006)

Quote: Andrew Green
My point was that all systems, whether they admit it or not are goverened by a set of rules, even if they are not laid out as such. Assumptions are made about what will be done, how it will happen, what will be involved, etc.

I disagree.  Ive trained WC for three years, and there are no set rules or patterns of fighting that we adhere to.  Sure we drill how to scenarios, like how to deflect a hook punch, or roundhouse kick.  But once the basics are drilled and learned almost all of our drills are working on adapting to spontenaety, flowing with an opponent when their next move is unexpected.  Chi Sau drills this flow.  You dont know what your partner is going to do next.  Thats the whole point, they could kick, pivot into or away from you, latch, punch, chop, elbow whatever..  You must react without anticipating and thinking.  This is not a drill with set rules or patterns.  WC is not restricted to rules and patterns.  That is its genius and simplicity.

In response to the earlier statement about anti-grappling(I dont like this name, it doesnt seem to fit the techniques); Ive noticed their seems to be a lot of misunderstanding with these techniques.  Done properly you apply WC principles and technique to the ground fighting.  
We train Chi Sau on our back while an opponent is in the mount position, deflecting and striking at the same time.  But, I havent seen anyone elese do this.  We chain punch the grappler while they are in the mount position on top.  But the true key is to keep the grappler out from between your legs.  Using the WC basic stance(in an augmented form) while on your back, you can keep a larger, stronger opponents full weight off of you, and keep them from getting past your knees, where they need to be to choke, strike, etc.  
Now, of course a wrestler or a grappler on your side is big trouble too.  We work the centerline theory to keep this from happening on the ground.  Just like when your standing doing WC, you use the same techniques on the ground deflecting, kicking, punching, and body movement all at the same time to protect yourself.
WC does have joint locks incorporated in the art, its just not totally depended upon like ju-jitsu.  If we can break and arm or wrist, we do it.  If the opponent slips out, we chain punch until something better comes along or until their finished.  Adaptation.
I have a strong background in Japanese Ju-Jitsu and was taking this art when the Gracies came about.  I understand grappling (we never called it grappling, it was just ground work, and only small part of the ju-jitsu training)I just dont agree with much of the Brazilian methods.  Even in Ju-Jitsu your ultimate goal was NOT to go to the ground right off the bat.  Ground work is what you did if you ended up there after throwing someone, if they took you by surprise, etc.  Most of our joint locking techniques were executed while standing.  This ground fighting fettish has enlightened a lot of martial artists in the need for well rounded training, and exposed the general public to another sport.  Which is good.  But to depend wholly on grappling as the end all to be all is not good.  
And the truth is that most kung fu styles dont even deal with the ground unless you train Suai Shau (cant spell it) or Chinese wrestling.  So, the techniques have always been there, just that Sifus and teachers didnt teach it because most people werent interested until the Gracies made it popular.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> Quote: Andrew Green
> My point was that all systems, whether they admit it or not are goverened by a set of rules, even if they are not laid out as such. Assumptions are made about what will be done, how it will happen, what will be involved, etc.
> 
> I disagree. Ive trained WC for three years, and there are no set rules or patterns of fighting that we adhere to. Sure we drill how to scenarios, like how to deflect a hook punch, or roundhouse kick. But once the basics are drilled and learned almost all of our drills are working on adapting to spontenaety, flowing with an opponent when their next move is unexpected. Chi Sau drills this flow. You dont know what your partner is going to do next. Thats the whole point, they could kick, pivot into or away from you, latch, punch, chop, elbow whatever.. You must react without anticipating and thinking. This is not a drill with set rules or patterns. WC is not restricted to rules and patterns. That is its genius and simplicity.


 
Except that these people with whom you are training are also Wing Chun people.  This means they are versed in Chi Sao as well, and automatically will fall into certain patterns.  I think this is what Andrew was referring to.  The "rules" exist, even if you don't realize it.  Simply training and drilling with people from your own style establishes rules and assumptions about how things will happen.  You all think the in the same way, about things.  The only way to get out of this is to train with people from other styles.  But then, they don't know how to do Chi Sao, and it makes it difficult to work with that kind of drill.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 20, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> Quote: Andrew Green
> My point was that all systems, whether they admit it or not are goverened by a set of rules, even if they are not laid out as such. Assumptions are made about what will be done, how it will happen, what will be involved, etc.
> 
> I disagree. Ive trained WC for three years, and there are no set rules or patterns of fighting that we adhere to. Sure we drill how to scenarios, like how to deflect a hook punch, or roundhouse kick. But once the basics are drilled and learned almost all of our drills are working on adapting to spontenaety, flowing with an opponent when their next move is unexpected. Chi Sau drills this flow. You dont know what your partner is going to do next. Thats the whole point, they could kick, pivot into or away from you, latch, punch, chop, elbow whatever.. You must react without anticipating and thinking. This is not a drill with set rules or patterns. WC is not restricted to rules and patterns. That is its genius and simplicity.





Wing chun does have governing rules and principles.  Just take a look at the kuen kuit for a vast ammount of rules for wing chun training.  I.e the wing chun maxims that suggest things like "Retain what comes in, send off what retreats. Rush in on loss of hand contact." and "Do not be lax when your opponent is not advancing" and "The body follows the movement of the hands. The waist and the stance move together"  and "Charge into the opponent. Execute three moves together"  and  "Strike any presented posture if it is there. Otherwise strike where you see motion. Beware of sneak attacks, leakage attacks and invisible centerline attacks" and "Coordinate the hands and feet. Movement is together"  

These are just a quick few taken from the wc maxims and of course are open to individual interpretation to some extent but wing chun does have rules underlying it and making it to an extent uniformed.  Everyone does it different but you should be able to see the underlying principles of wing chun at work and thats what governs it and makes it so.  You are right in saying that you don't know what is next but chi sau does have rules regarding pressure and structure, for example lut sau jic kuen.  This is a reaction without out thinking but its also a rule just not the rules that perhaps you are envisioning.  Rules can be subtle and underlying and not be about thinking at the moment you have to react but rather a rule in which to make a reaction a valuable one.  It is a simple art although there is much to master and the rules change and change again which i'm sure you are begining to find with your 3 years.  I think we all attach a certain stigma to the idea of rules and see them as restrictive but the rules allow for less restriction they allow for us to be adaptive to many a situation.  

With all that said there is also familiarity and complacency to contend with in any training group.  I remember i used to chi sau with the same group of guys when i first got into chi sau and when i jumped in with guys i was less familiar with it showed me that my training, whilst governed by underlying rules,  its down to the individual to master those rules in relation to him/her self in order to be able to apply them to every opponent.  Now theres a challenge!  None of that means you are rigid and clunky with your wing chun, you can still flow in fact its all these "rules" that help you flow and react without slowing.


----------



## Si-Je (Sep 20, 2006)

I agree with you ed.  I think that many WC stylists over anylze the art and sometimes it becomes confusing.  We've had students come from other schools that train set patterns and drill sets and when they train with us the enjoy the impromtu way of training we incorporate.
But many of that was mentioned earlier as "rules" is in truth "methodology" and technique.  We've seen that many schools only spar and train with other WC stylists, that's why we encourage other stylists to come and train with us, BJJ, MMA, TKD, JKD, Kempo, and we get invited by other schools to do free sparring on the weekends and such for practice in free sparring for both schools.  
We really have better repore with martial artists in other arts than in kung fu because we are friendly and open to different arts.  This keeps our students sharp and experienced in different forms of attack.
We also compete in even a couple of A.O.K. tourneys anything that has continuous sparring.  Really not there to "win" so much as to give the students the experience of fighting against an unknown attacker from a different style.  LOL!  our students do well and usually win the fight but lose the match because of WC's chain punching.  We've found that they are unfamiliar with it and deem it as "wild punching" and don't call the points.  After the matches other students from the tourney usually ask about taking lessons.  It's kinda weird.  But we just truely go for fun, and to give our students valuable experience.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Sep 23, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> our students do well and usually win the fight but lose the match because of WC's chain punching. We've found that they are unfamiliar with it and deem it as "wild punching" and don't call the points. After the matches other students from the tourney usually ask about taking lessons. It's kinda weird. But we just truely go for fun, and to give our students valuable experience.


 
Do you mean your students win or lose by chain punching?


----------



## Ali Rahim (Sep 23, 2006)

MMAfighter said:


> A lot of times when i see a WC video i always see grappling involved. Just wondering, has it always been there or was it just added in recently?


 
This will happen because the stance is weak, and by not having a strong understanding of the stance, you will resort to your most natural resources, which is strength.  Therefore mixing muscle with muscle hence grappling. Which in true essence is tossing wing chun clean out of the window, making true understanding of softness and sensitivity void within your wing chun studies.


----------



## Si-Je (Sep 24, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:


> Do you mean your students win or lose by chain punching?


 
I ment that the students lose the A.O.K matches because the judges don't know what chain punching IS.  They do not count them as strikes, although the opponent is punched out of the ring several times, and they are striking the opponent in the same spot.  They deem the punching "wild punching."  
The strikes counted are hammer fist strikes to the top of the head.  These are the only way our students' get points counted against them or for them.  Very weird experience.  I tried to explain to the judges what Chain punching was, but they didn't want to hear it.  It was a good lesson for the students in the politics of MA, and the general ignorance about WC.


----------



## Selfcritical (Oct 2, 2006)

Ali Rahim said:


> This will happen because the stance is weak, and by not having a strong understanding of the stance, you will resort to your most natural resources, which is strength.  Therefore mixing muscle with muscle hence grappling. Which in true essence is tossing wing chun clean out of the window, making true understanding of softness and sensitivity void within your wing chun studies.



Because there's definately no technique in submission wrestling or BJJ, i mean,  it's not like the whole purpose of the gi is to keep you from being able to just muscle out of a pin. There's definately no use of leverage, sensitivity to your opponents movement, or strategy involved. 

/end sarcasm


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 2, 2006)

Ouch!  But this is all really not nessasary.  You don't need to throw all WC out the window, or use BJJ to defend against a grappler.  There are plenty of alternatives.  The entrance used by BJJ is pretty predictable, easy to read and simply countered.  
If you can't avoid a take down, go with it, and use their strength to re-direct, and deflect them.  Just like when standing using WC concepts.
On the ground stance is cruital too.  We use the basic stance while on our backs on the ground to keep the opponent off us.  Works like a charm!


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 2, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> But you are trying to, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.  what you are claiming is that wing chun dueling techniques are equally effective under MMA rules.
> 
> And I will conceed that they work nicely under Wing Chun rules, but in MMA they do not, and everyone that has tried to show they do has been taken down.
> 
> ...



I have had MMA'ists spar with me, and frankly, WC holds a lot of answers, I had one guy at a party who found out I did Wing Chun, declared it to be crap, told me about his training background (MMA) and then promptly made a fool of him self when he tried to catch me of guard and get me in a grapple, only to have me utilise principals both from Chum Kui and Bui Jee to have him sitting in the hosts flower pot looking a touch sheepish. As I have stated in about 1000 others post, wing chun holds answers for grappling or infact for anything else that mma throws at us. The question is are you trained against it, and do you understand it, have you understanding about the system to make it work. Look Andrew we all know you have a hard on for grappling which is fine, but I always find the lean of your posts in the Wing Chun section a little "MMA is the best in world" mma has its own flaws and weaknesses as much as any other art. And seeing as how you have neither trained extensivly in Wing Chun nor do you understand it it is probably best if you kept your comments to what you understand.


And by the way _*"Two different games, different games"*_ only in UFC and pride is fighting a game, only in competition is fighting a game, in real life, its a very different animal, there are no rules, no if or then, only what is, and I would dare say in my lifetime I probably wont get in a rumble with one of the gracies any way, so we dont need to keep talking about them as they are the unbeatable Titans of the Universe, because as Shamrock displyed they clearly are not. The fact of the matter is they have a game plan, now everyone knows it. Their power simply came from the ignorace of those around them. That ignorance is now dispelled as is their power, simple.


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 3, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:


> And by the way _*"Two different games, different games"*_ only in UFC and pride is fighting a game, only in competition is fighting a game, in real life, its a very different animal, there are no rules, no if or then, only what is, and I would dare say in my lifetime I probably wont get in a rumble with one of the gracies any way, so we dont need to keep talking about them as they are the unbeatable Titans of the Universe, because as Shamrock displyed they clearly are not. The fact of the matter is they have a game plan, now everyone knows it. Their power simply came from the ignorace of those around them. That ignorance is now dispelled as is their power, simple.


 
Very good post!  I remember the Shamrock and Gracie fight, that was in the early UFC years (back when I used to watch it regularly).  Shamrock was an american wrestler and very experienced.  I also remember that Gracie never fought anyone that studied Japanese Ju-Jitsu, or wrestlers (until Shamrock) in the first UFC's.  He only got to fight stylists that didn't study any ground fighting at all.  They just made it popular in the States, the whole ground fighting thing.  Most people here aren't very familiar with other arts, the mainstream styles (TKD, kickboxing/Muy Tai, Bjj now days and MMA, boxing, Judo) are all people really are familiar with.

We teach Wing Chun here in Texas, and most people have never even heard of it.  So what we come accross is while trying to educate people about WC we get asked questions about BJJ.  And how we defend against it, and how it is so practical.  Very irritating sometimes.  For, it isn't practical for the street (or anywhere but a ring with rules).  

It's the trend now, the fad in America and unfortunately american's are ruled by the media.  So to teach people WC we must change minds, or elese get fresh minds that don't know anything about the other arts.  Those are our best students because they are open and free of preconcieved notions on how fighting "should" be done.

UFC has a profound affect on people here, they act like it's the ultimate test of a styles effectiveness, which is the great illusion.  The rules of UFC are molded around BJJ and grappling to make it more effective.  If it really was "realistic no holds barred fighting"  people would be allowed to punch the back of the neck of a grappler that comes into a fighter head first exposing the spine, or knees to the face as the try to grab the legs.   Just as an example.  A good heel kick to the teeth will take down a man coming into grapple a Wing Chun practitioner.  All you need is Grade 1 and Grade 2 techniques, very simple stuff.  But this is not allowed either.  So how can they claim that what they show is "no holds barred?"  Because they speak of submission holds, litterarly, not striking.

We use the anti-grappling techniques for the ground and they have proven to be extremely effective against grappling, wrestling, BJJ, etc.
I've taken Japanese Ju-Jitsu for years before my WC training, and being familiar with "grappling" concept have found that the anti-grappling is nothing short of brilliant even in it's most simple form.  But you won't see it in UFC because the rules deny most of it's technique.  Maybe in Pride contests.  That stuff is more realistic than UFC for sure, and they allow for more technique.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> Very good post!  I remember the Shamrock and Gracie fight, that was in the early UFC years (back when I used to watch it regularly).  Shamrock was an american wrestler and very experienced.



Shamrock was American, But he was a Japanese shootfighter, and at the time "King of Pancrase"



> I also remember that Gracie never fought anyone that studied Japanese Ju-Jitsu, or wrestlers (until Shamrock) in the first UFC's.



Sure he had.  The Gracie Challenge goes back farther then the UFC.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 3, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:


> I have had MMA'ists spar with me, and frankly, WC holds a lot of answers, I had one guy at a party who found out I did Wing Chun, declared it to be crap, told me about his training background (MMA) and then promptly made a fool of him self when he tried to catch me of guard and get me in a grapple, only to have me utilise principals both from Chum Kui and Bui Jee to have him sitting in the hosts flower pot looking a touch sheepish.



That's ok, but anecodtal evidence goes both ways, so without some controls and other info in place, it is rather meaningless.



> Look Andrew we all know you have a hard on for grappling which is fine,



No, I'm more of a striker to be honest 



> but I always find the lean of your posts in the Wing Chun section a little "MMA is the best in world"



MMA is the best in the world... for MMA fights.



> mma has its own flaws and weaknesses as much as any other art.



That it does.



> And seeing as how you have neither trained extensivly in Wing Chun nor do you understand it it is probably best if you kept your comments to what you understand.



Now I suppose this should go both ways should it not?  That you should keep your opinions on MMA to yourself?

Of course if everyone just kept there opinions to themself on every subject that they lacked 10-20 years experience in this would ber a message board of a dozen people talking to themselves with no intereaction....





> And by the way _*"Two different games, different games"*_ only in UFC and pride is fighting a game,



How about the "Leitai" fights of China where the old masters fought to see who was the best under a set of rules.  Guess those where just a game too and had no real value either?  But didn't many styles of Kung Fu proove  themselves through those?


----------



## Rook (Oct 3, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> Very good post! I remember the Shamrock and Gracie fight, that was in the early UFC years (back when I used to watch it regularly). Shamrock was an american wrestler and very experienced. I also remember that Gracie never fought anyone that studied Japanese Ju-Jitsu, or wrestlers (until Shamrock) in the first UFC's. He only got to fight stylists that didn't study any ground fighting at all. They just made it popular in the States, the whole ground fighting thing. Most people here aren't very familiar with other arts, the mainstream styles (TKD, kickboxing/Muy Tai, Bjj now days and MMA, boxing, Judo) are all people really are familiar with.
> 
> We teach Wing Chun here in Texas, and most people have never even heard of it. So what we come accross is while trying to educate people about WC we get asked questions about BJJ. And how we defend against it, and how it is so practical. Very irritating sometimes. For, it isn't practical for the street (or anywhere but a ring with rules).
> 
> ...


 
You do realize that there have been and still are invitations to fight without any rules at all from MMAists - there is the Gracie Challenge and the Chute-Boxe challenge for $10,000 apiece among other less well known challenges?  You could collect easy money if all you need in Wing Chun basics to prevent MMA tactics - and with no rules there shouldn't be any excuses.


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 3, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Shamrock was American, But he was a Japanese shootfighter, and at the time "King of Pancrase".


 
I know Shamrock is American.  As well as shootfighting he competed in american wrestling as well.



Andrew Green said:


> Sure he had. The Gracie Challenge goes back farther then the UFC.


 
Yeah, well, that's thier story.  all a one sided point of view this is.  



Rook said:


> You do realize that there have been and still are invitations to fight without any rules at all from MMAists - there is the Gracie Challenge and the Chute-Boxe challenge for $10,000 apiece among other less well known challenges? You could collect easy money if all you need in Wing Chun basics to prevent MMA tactics - and with no rules there shouldn't be any excuses.


 
Where are these competitions?  Haven't heard of them before, but then, I'm not really into this sort of thing.  My husband (and teacher) is very interested in this type of fighting.  He loves to compete.  I'm trying to find out where in our area he can compete in either MMA cage or ring or whatever.

Although the "Gracie" challenge would not be wise.  They have too much control over the rules of engagement, and the family hovers around the fight like a flock of vultures.  We're looking for more unbiased competition and more open rule sets than what you get with those guys.

Of course, fighting without ANY rules will get really ugly, and will allow my hubbie to use ALL of his Wing Chun technique.  Although basics will work out just fine, but NO rules will allow him to fully use sensitivity, flow, and wing chun technique.  

I would really like to know more about these competitions.
Thank you.


----------



## Rook (Oct 3, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> I know Shamrock is American. As well as shootfighting he competed in american wrestling as well.


 
I think he was only in the fake pro-wrestling in America if I'm not mistaken.  





> Yeah, well, that's thier story. all a one sided point of view this is.


 
They kinda won all the matches.  The results were as one sided as the point of view.  



> Where are these competitions? Haven't heard of them before, but then, I'm not really into this sort of thing. My husband (and teacher) is very interested in this type of fighting. He loves to compete. I'm trying to find out where in our area he can compete in either MMA cage or ring or whatever.


 
If you go to www.mma.tv , you'll find an extensive list of local tournaments... I'm sure there is probably one in your area, wherever that may be.  



> Although the "Gracie" challenge would not be wise. They have too much control over the rules of engagement, and the family hovers around the fight like a flock of vultures. We're looking for more unbiased competition and more open rule sets than what you get with those guys.


 
Ok, I can see your point, the Gracies are a bit overbearing.  

If you go to Bullshido and fire off a challenge, they'll send a C-level professional fighter your way and you can negociate ruleset beforehand.  Thats probably the easiest option, as you won't have to fly anywhere else or worry about pre-fight physical exams - they'll send him to you.  

Another option is to fly to Curitiba, Brazil and fight against a member of Chute-Boxe, with the possibility of a $10,000 prize if you win sans-rules (you might want to let them know you're coming beforehand and see if they've changed anything since the last time the challenge was issued - origionally to a wing chun expert no less).  The Chute-Boxe guys are fairly solid pro-fighters, and their matches are ussually conducted a bit more mature and professional manner than the Gracies.  

A third option is to find someone who knows about the Russian MMA scene - there is a fighting set called "Combat Sambo Total" where there are fines for biting or eye attacks and no other restrictions.  From my understanding, there are quite a few of these tournaments going on at any given month, so that might be a bit more up your alley if you're thinking very limited ruleset but still something.  I don't have a name for you, but it  could be something to look into.  



> Of course, fighting without ANY rules will get really ugly, and will allow my hubbie to use ALL of his Wing Chun technique. Although basics will work out just fine, but NO rules will allow him to fully use sensitivity, flow, and wing chun technique.
> 
> I would really like to know more about these competitions.
> Thank you.


 
Sure thing.


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 3, 2006)

Thank you very much for the info!  I've searched alot online, to find out where to get started, but it seems a little dauting.  

Going to Brazil would be out of our price range.  We're poor martial artistist! lol!  Getting ready to open a school is going to take more funds than we currently have.  So were trying to stay local for now.

We're in Texas, and I've been trying to find some competitions for him here.  There's San Shou in Dallas, and San Antonio, some MMA cage fights outside of Dallas (pretty far from us).  But we're researching it while he conditions.

He works full time, and planning time to train, and condition is an issue as well.  But he loves to compete, so I try to support him in that endeavor.  Me, I've got NO interest in such things.  I just love to teach and train Wing Chun.  Although, he wants me to compete too in these new women's fights (although it seems that you have to be a kickboxer to compete in the tournaments WFC).  For me, fighting women wouldn't prove what I wish to prove as the ultimate effectiveness of Wing Chun.
Although no one seems to like the story of Yim Wing Chun and Ng Mai founding and creating the art, I find that the more I learn and train WC that this "myth" seems more and more true to me.  The principles are directly from the mind set of a woman, point of view of a female, and the style and direction of fighting what a woman would need to do to be effective against a larger, stronger opponent (a man).  The emphasis of not using strength, or force is stressed so much that it makes me think it came from someone who never had strength or force as an asset in fighting.  - off subject there, sorry.  But it's the main reason I don't wish to fight other women in competion.  Even though they train to fight like men.


----------



## Rook (Oct 3, 2006)

Si-Je said:


> Thank you very much for the info! I've searched alot online, to find out where to get started, but it seems a little dauting.


 
There is alot of information to go through.  



> Going to Brazil would be out of our price range. We're poor martial artistist! lol! Getting ready to open a school is going to take more funds than we currently have. So were trying to stay local for now.


 
Thats just for a major fight without rules.  You probably won't get money for fighting without a sanctioned professional fight outside Brazil and Russia besides the Gracie challenge.  



> We're in Texas, and I've been trying to find some competitions for him here. There's San Shou in Dallas, and San Antonio, some MMA cage fights outside of Dallas (pretty far from us). But we're researching it while he conditions.


 
I would personally recommend amateur MMA competitions first.  From there, its easier to enter the pro-ranks.  San Shou involves a very restrictive ruleset and requires the wearing of heavy gloves, so I wouldn't recommend it as a way to fight using Wing Chun tactics.  



> He works full time, and planning time to train, and condition is an issue as well. But he loves to compete, so I try to support him in that endeavor. Me, I've got NO interest in such things. I just love to teach and train Wing Chun. Although, he wants me to compete too in these new women's fights (although it seems that you have to be a kickboxer to compete in the tournaments WFC). For me, fighting women wouldn't prove what I wish to prove as the ultimate effectiveness of Wing Chun.


 
Ok.  



> Although no one seems to like the story of Yim Wing Chun and Ng Mai founding and creating the art, I find that the more I learn and train WC that this "myth" seems more and more true to me. The principles are directly from the mind set of a woman, point of view of a female, and the style and direction of fighting what a woman would need to do to be effective against a larger, stronger opponent (a man). The emphasis of not using strength, or force is stressed so much that it makes me think it came from someone who never had strength or force as an asset in fighting. - off subject there, sorry. But it's the main reason I don't wish to fight other women in competion. Even though they train to fight like men.


 
I think what I have seen of Wing Chun only makes sense when its being used by a smaller person fighting a larger opponent or equally sized people fighting - it would not be a good art for a large person, nor would it work well for fighting smaller people from what I have seen.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 3, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> That's ok, but anecodtal evidence goes both ways, so without some controls and other info in place, it is rather meaningless.



It was real enough for me at the time, unless your doubting the source? Anectodal evidence is just as valid as any other form of evidence, but I am not trying to prove anything to you, I am just letting you know that the majority of waht people say about WC v MMA is just pure rubbish, especially to those who say that WC holds no answers to MMA.





Andrew Green said:


> No, I'm more of a striker to be honest



Well your saying one thing your posts say something entirely different (infact this isn't the first time we have had this disscussion)





Andrew Green said:


> MMA is the best in the world... for MMA fights.



Within the confines and rules of MMA competitions maybe which are geared around that maybe, but in the reality of rela world fighting??? thats what I train for, I train for what to do when I am cornered on the street by  a coule of thugs who want to lighten me of my wallet, end of story.





Andrew Green said:


> Now I suppose this should go both ways should it not?  That you should keep your opinions on MMA to yourself?
> 
> Of course if everyone just kept there opinions to themself on every subject that they lacked 10-20 years experience in this would ber a message board of a dozen people talking to themselves with no intereaction....



Yes but the difference is I dont make comments about mixed martial arts itself (even though I have studied within MMA) I simply make comments about the things I have experaince in i.e. Wing Chun does have answers against BJJ, Boxing, MT, Karate etc etc... I dont make any direct comments on the quality or the abilitys of MMA, where as you seem to have no roblems comenting on the quality and the ability of Wing Chun, so its not the same.







Andrew Green said:


> How about the "Leitai" fights of China where the old masters fought to see who was the best under a set of rules.  Guess those where just a game too and had no real value either?  But didn't many styles of Kung Fu proove  themselves through those?



The only competitions I know of where those that my Sifu competed in along with Wong Shun Leung, Bruce Lee, William Cheung etc, these competitions had no rules at all except for a gentlemens agreement not to kill each other, *there where no rules *and just incase you missed that [there where no rules]

If you think that MMA is the best thing since sliced bread then thats fine, indeed there are many fine MMA fighters, guys that I would not choose to mess with, but there ability is not so much a reflection on the superiortiy of MMA but rather a testament to the hours of dedicated training, there openess to their own ability and in general their large fighting spirit and of these caliber of men there are many to be found in every sphere of maritial art.


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:


> If you think that MMA is the best thing since sliced bread then thats fine, indeed there are many fine MMA fighters, guys that I would not choose to mess with, but there ability is not so much a reflection on the superiortiy of MMA but rather a testament to the hours of dedicated training, there openess to their own ability and in general their large fighting spirit and of these caliber of men there are many to be found in every sphere of maritial art.


 
This is the problem though - there are people who train just as long and just as hard as MMA fighters in many other displines, yet can't and don't win in no-rules challenges.  

No rules challenges are not entirely dead, although the legal threats have made them much rarer than they once were - the Gracies, who are no longer even ranked as MMA fighters in any major promotion, still have a challenge for a no-rules fight with an offer of $10,000 to anyone outside of BJJ who can beat them.  The Chute-Boxe Academy in Brazil has the same offer - $10,000, no rules.  Hundreds of people have tried and none have suceeded.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> This is the problem though - there are people who train just as long and just as hard as MMA fighters in many other displines, yet can't and don't win in no-rules challenges.



I think you will find that this is a problem that even MMA would find within its own ranks, you seem to miss the entire point of my post. Effectiveness does not lie within a system,  but within a man. If he cant make the grade then it obviously does not lie within the man to make the grade, regardless of the system. You know if you still think that it comes down to a system, then my friend you have a lot to learn. 



Rook said:


> No rules challenges are not entirely dead, although the legal threats have made them much rarer than they once were - the Gracies, who are no longer even ranked as MMA fighters in any major promotion, still have a challenge for a no-rules fight with an offer of $10,000 to anyone outside of BJJ who can beat them.  The Chute-Boxe Academy in Brazil has the same offer - $10,000, no rules.  Hundreds of people have tried and none have suceeded.



Well as you have admited, here is the strange thing, really the Gracies are not mma, are they?? and as for hundreds of people have tried and NONE have succeded, I know a Martial arts teacher who claims 400 + fights without a single loss. Dont you realise that these exagerated claims are nothing more than marketing fodder so that everyone will go "oh wow, I  have to learn this invincible art so I will be invincible". If you had told me about a single fight that you had, had, credible, but to state that a school has had hundereds of challengers and NO ONE has succedded well I am sure its all well documented, because I they can prove it, I will start training there tomorow


----------



## Rook (Oct 4, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:


> I think you will find that this is a problem that even MMA would find within its own ranks, you seem to miss the entire point of my post. Effectiveness does not lie within a system, but within a man. If he cant make the grade then it obviously does not lie within the man to make the grade, regardless of the system. You know if you still think that it comes down to a system, then my friend you have a lot to learn.


 
The system is part of what makes a fighter effective - thats why we train in martial arts in the first place - to become better than we would be outside a given system.  



> Well as you have admited, here is the strange thing, really the Gracies are not mma, are they??


 
The Gracies launched modern mixed martial arts as we know it today.  They are no longer top rank.  



> and as for hundreds of people have tried and NONE have succeded, I know a Martial arts teacher who claims 400 + fights without a single loss. Dont you realise that these exagerated claims are nothing more than marketing fodder so that everyone will go "oh wow, I have to learn this invincible art so I will be invincible".


 
Thats why we have to make a distinction between things proven on video and stuff that is simply atested to.  



> If you had told me about a single fight that you had, had, credible, but to state that a school has had hundereds of challengers and NO ONE has succedded well I am sure its all well documented, because I they can prove it, I will start training there tomorow


 
Easy enough.  Thats the whole point of the Gracies in action tapes - they show you the video record of the more interesting of the challenges; their wins are all on tape.  No one has beaten them in the challenges and there is a $10,000 prize for anyone who does.


----------



## yipman_sifu (Oct 5, 2006)

Rook said:


> The system is part of what makes a fighter effective - thats why we train in martial arts in the first place - to become better than we would be outside a given system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The Gracie challenge had losses for sure. They used that video prove evidence in their victories only. I wonder what kind of mind people have to think that their stuff would work in a real street fight?. BJJ is a 
*Complementary *stuff only. It can never be a full fighting strategy. It has a high success rate in competitions since it's a submission based fighting and fits MMA in general. People who likes MMA and UFC. There is a special place for posting about this stuff (MMA section). I don't know why people come in here and post against Wing Chun stuff. Since many people don't what is it about, they just start saying that it failed to be effective in the UFC. Although all the guys with Wing Chun participated in the UFC were not more than 4 to 5 guys. 2 of them were taught crap Wing Chun, and the rest took it as a complemetary stuff with their Greco Roman and Wrestling stuff. and in general, Wing Chun is deprived about 90% of it's techniques once it's in the ring. *Please guys, that's enough*.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 5, 2006)

I could have responded more indepth with rook, but I think Rook (no disrespect intended) has made up his (or her) mind, and you know rook, I totally respect someone who can stick t the courage of their convictions, good for you, and I will show yuo no dishonour, except (and please bare in mind i am half cut to the wind) I will say dont believe all the hype that comes out of a MA camp because at the end of the day it is simply about self promotion which is kind of the point I was making about the guy wh claimed 400 + victoriys, sure 300+ may have been against drunks in a pub but hey whos counting the finner statistics?

The point i am trying to make rook is that  no matter how good a system is, even wing chun, which i am quite proud in saying is a lot better than people realise, it all comes down to the student, what they take from their training, what they put in in and outside normal training hours, I will always fear a man who has trainined longer and harder in any style regardless  of what knockers will say, there is a man to be feared for he has the fighting spirit


----------



## Rook (Oct 5, 2006)

bcbernam777 said:


> about self promotion which is kind of the point I was making about the guy wh claimed 400 + victoriys, sure 300+ may have been against drunks in a pub but hey whos counting the finner statistics?


 
Rickson Gracie's stats are made up, which is why they aren't counted on his official record.  That is quite different than the overall number of challenge matches which are recorded.


----------

