ground fighting in wing chun

[drummingman]

i know that i keep asking about this in a bunch of styles.the reason is because to me it seems that a system is not really complete without ground self defense.
so,does wing chun have ground fighting in it?
by the way,check out this website of a place near me that teaches this style.its got a ton on info on it,except for answering the question im asking here. http://www.shaolinkungfucenter.com/main.html
please let me know what you think of this school.

 

[monji112000]

The short answer is no.


Ip man didn't teach any Ground fighting, and I am pretty sure any mainland versions do not have ground fighting.


People have add what little ground fighting they know and created hybrid “systems”. A example is Emin Bonzepe, he was a student of leung Ting, who was a student of leung shueng, who was a student of Ip man. Emin what he learned from leung Ting and his previous experience with Turkish oil wrestling and combined it. I have heard of other teachers like Kamon who mixes BJJ and wing chun. I know of another guy who has wrestling as a background who mixes it with Wing Chun. This is very common to do in any style/culture, since people travel and experience many things.


I would generalize that most cases what happens is that you get a watered down version of both styles. Its very hard to learn one style of fighting, and to master a style takes a life time. Realistically most people don't have to time to “master” two styles in one life time,prob not even one.


But, many people are happy just practicing different arts.(nothing wrong with that) I believe its realistic to say that one could focus on one “main” art, and dabble in a side art. JMO

 

[Shogun]

The school in which my Gracie Jiu-jitsu instructor operates out of is in fact, a WingTsun school. It seems that the grappling is something being added at different levels by different WT/WC instrcutors. recently, a WT student was going over "anti-grappling" with another student. he was explaining to the lower level student about takedown defense. now, there is nothing wrong with teaching someone this, but was acting as if it would work against any wrestler. not to be a jerk, but I later trained with him some takedowns in the Jiu-jitsu class, and as a wrestler, repeatedly put him on his back over and over. his excuse was he could of dropped "one" elbow to my body. now....don't get me wrong it MIGHT work but in all honesty I've fallen off quads and been ran over, fallen 10 stairs off my skateboard and hit my head, and watched people hit by cars before, and all situations involved nothing more that a sore body the next day. no instant death, knock out, or even much of a reaction. so in your opinion, is it harmful to teach takedown defenses as if everybody is the same? barfighter, thug, geeky kid, and champion wrestler alike? or what. maybe I just don't get it.

 

[KOROHO]

... it seems that a system is not really complete without ground self defense. so,does wing chun have ground fighting in it?...

Hello again drummingman.

It seems that there are a lot of people that think the Gracie family invented ground fighting. But they got it from Judo, which grew out of Jujutsu. So as discussed in various other threads, there was ground fighting in Japan long before anyone ever heard of the Gracies and probably for centuries before they were even born. Then on to Okinawa. We discussed the Chinese origins of Goju Ryu and the ground work of that style, as well as the Chinese influence on Okinawan karate in general.

Now here were are talking about Wing Chun (Wing Tsun) - another old Chinese art - and the ground fighting. There answer here is a resounding YES, there is ground fightin in WC/WT. The next question: Is it something new? NO.
I went to a series of Wing Tsun seminars conducted by seniors of Leun Ting long before there was Brazilian Jujutsu in this country. One of the things that was stressed was the different ranges of fighting - including grappling and ground fighting.

You are correct in your thinking that every complete system will include grappling and ground fighting. Wing Chun should be counted as a complete system. The problem here, just as with so many arts, is finding a qualified instructor who can either teach the whole system himself or is still connected to a senior who can come to the school and fill in the gaps.

 

[KOROHO]

I'm getting some rather rude, unsigned rep negatives because of this post.
I'd like to just address the general attitude expressed, which is quite common about ground fighting.

As stated before, the Gracies did not invent ground fighting. But every time someone addresses the issue of ground fighting in ancient arts, some one comes along and says that stole the idea from the gracies or BJJ or some other grappling style. This is just ignorant.

Others say "my teacher did not learn ground fighting in that style, therefore it does not exist". Again, in more cases than not, this is an ignorant attitude.

Going back to my own early training, I was one of the seniors for a number of years, and also among the group of most dedicated students. Often times I was the only one at class that night, and very often one of only a couple that bothered to show up. It was on these nights, Sensei would show us things and say "don't show this to the others. If they wanted to know, they would have been here". Now, some 20 years later, I am teaching things that my juniors never saw. They may now be saying "He didn't get that from Sensei, so he must have got it from BJJ". But that would be a very foolish and ignorant statement on thier part.

Now Ip Man may not have taught ground fighting to everyone in the general classes. But to come here and claim that he never taught anyone ground fighting is mighty bold. How do you know what he did and did not teach to private students or at times when only 1 or 2 students showed up for class? The answer to that is that there is no way for you to know. All you have is your teacher saying "If it existed I would know it, therefore it does not exist".

Wing Chun is a very well thought out system that includes all ranges of fighting. It was developed in China and used as defense against other martial arts which included grappling. So the "anti-grappling" is also not anything new.

 

[Journeyman]

I ran across a reference on the web that Ron van Clief was the earliest American student of Leung Ting. Anyone know how advanced van Clief is in Wing Chun/Wing Tsun?

Regarding some of the other martial arts, it's mainly the non-live training methods and/or de-emphasising of groundfighting to the point of near uselessness that prompts criticism. The origins of BJJ are well-known. I don't know why acknowledging its Japanese roots would bother people. There's even the old joke that BJJ means "Basically Just Judo".

 

[drummingman]

there is a wing chun school in my area that i e mailed and they said that they do not teach the ground part of wing chun.he said that there is no ground fighting in wing chun.i guess he was wrong.

 

[ed-swckf]

there is a wing chun school in my area that i e mailed and they said that they do not teach the ground part of wing chun.he said that there is no ground fighting in wing chun.i guess he was wrong.

You are both talking in absoloutes. You say he is wrong, he says there is no ground fighting. you both seem to strive to grasp a solid answer and explanation but whats the actual question you are answering? If you are on the ground using something learnt in wing chun does it become something else? Wing chun won't teach you BJJ thats much is true, but if you are tripped or slip in an attack it doesn't mean your wing chun has been exhausted and you can do nothing until you are back on your feet.

 

[arnisador]

he said that there is no ground fighting in wing chun.

That's correct. The book "Complete Wing Chun" is a good reference in this regard.

Of course, if a particular instructor adds it, that's great.

 

[KOROHO]

I never heard of this author. What qualifies him to write this book and say it is the complete system?

Here's one of the reviews from Amazon.com

"The title of the book should be Incomplete rather than Complete Wing Chun. The writing on the Yip Man chapter is based on the author's biased opinion rather than objective information. The authors gave three or four version of Wing Chun history which only shows their lack of academic research. Proprigating myths and legends without coming up with thesis will only add more confusions to the wing chun world."

Hardly sounds like a reliable source.

 

[arnisador]

They didn't want to call it "Complete" and were disappointed when the publisher did so. But, it is fairly comprehensive.

Hardly sounds like a reliable source.

The book, or Amazon's anonymous reviews?

 

[KOROHO]

The book seems to be unreliable.
Who is this guy and what makes him the world's authority on Wing Chun?

Just because Amazon does not require names to be used does not invalidate this persons review. To me, the review that clearly points out major flaws in the book, is carries more weight than some unkown author coming along and decalring himself to be the final authority on the art.

I would say that if he did not address ground issues, then it can not be "Complete Wing Chun".

I would suggest passing on this book and look for something by someone who is an authority on the art.

 

[Cthulhu]

I think some people thing Yip Man Wing Chun is the "be all end all" of Wing Chun.

Cthulhu

They didn't want to call it "Complete" and were disappointed when the publisher did so. But, it is fairly comprehensive.



The book, or Amazon's anonymous reviews?

 

[Jade Tigress]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation on topic..

Pamela Piszczek
MT Moderator

 

[monji112000]

its a simple question, and it has a simple answer.

Its common knowledge that Ip man didn't teach "ground-fighting". Just ask some of his Disciples. Other of his STUDENTS, and STUDENTS of his STUDENTS have started to add it into their "style". I have read allot about main land China Wing Chun, and I have never heard of anything related to Ground fighting. SURE eye gouging is talked about, but not in a tactic or strategy for the ground. Its not a bold statement, its a fact that can be verified if you take the time like I have.

I give complete respect to the Gracie family, and other ground fighting arts.

I am not saying you can't use ideas of Wing Chun to fight on the ground. I am saying its wasn't taught by Ip man. Its most probably not originally in the main land version.

Any ground fighting has been ADDED within recent years.


I am not stating that these adaptions are good or bad. Its a personal choice, I don't claim to know whats best for other people.

A general statement that ground Fighting exists in Wing Chun, is false.

If you want to learn how to wrestle go to a wrestler not a boxer.

 

[elder999]

I never heard of this author. What qualifies him to write this book and say it is the complete system?

Chu specializes in combat application with a focus on the Yip Man Wing Chun Kuen system as taught by Hawkins Cheung and the Yuen Kay-San and Gulao Wing Chun Kuen systems as taught by Kwan Jong-Yuen. He's a direct disciple of Hawkins Cheung, which makes him one generation away from Yip Man.

It's also worth adding that his book is an excellent piece of research into many of the various forms of wing chun, and that's what is meant by "Complete," in the title.

If you are on the ground using something learnt in wing chun does it become something else? Wing chun won't teach you BJJ thats much is true, but if you are tripped or slip in an attack it doesn't mean your wing chun has been exhausted and you can do nothing until you are back on your feet

Seems sensible enough to me......

 

[KOROHO]

Now I'm really convinced it's a worthless book.

 

[elder999]

Now I'm really convinced it's a worthless book.

Seems sensible enough to me....

 

[arnisador]

Now I'm really convinced it's a worthless book.

You have many opinions on a book that you claim not to have every beheld.

 

[KOROHO]

Well like I said. It is very incomplete and gets poor reviews.
There are only 2 people here supporting the book: You who I know nothing about, and another who I have an extremely low opinion of.

Based on my experience with very well known Wing Chun teachers and other reviews of the book I am reccomending that those interested in Wing Chun spend thier money on a book by an authority on the subject. The reviews of this book indicate that the author has little to no knowledge of the history of the art. He has confused myths with facts. Given this, there is no reason to put any faith in what he says about the technique.

I don't need to waste my money on a seemingly worthless book to prove my point. That's what reviews and the publishing of pages to leaf through is for.

I stahnd with the original review that I posted, "Complete Wing Chun" does not even come close to being an authoratative source on the subject.