Hybrid Arts

[Kung Fu Wang]

Basically you control the near limb of the opponent with your "far hand".

Agree! To be able to control your opponent's leading arm by your back arm is the most important part of the striking art and grappling art integration. If you can use your "minor arm" to control your opponent's "major arm", you will have your "major arm" left to deal with his "minor arm". That will be your advantage.

 

[drop bear]

Agree! Your

- boxing coach won't be able to teach you how to integrate wrestling into boxing.
- wrestling coach also won't be able to teach you how to integrate boxing into wrestling.

It's "YOU" who has to do that "integration" task.

Sort of.

They will give you options. And there are some fairly common pathways to take.

 

[drop bear]

No I am starting with the idea that when you are dealing with developing skill on the bridge, you cannot have a dual mindset, but a single fully committed mindset. It does not work dually pursuing hand fighting and striking in the clinch at the same time. Yes that does break a fundamental tenet but you are missing the point. You literally cannot grab someone's wrist at the same time you are striking them. You have to do one or the other. You have to have some mental reaction towards one or the other before that. The people on this thread that are telling us they do this all seamlessly are initiating either one or the other mentally well before any execution of technique occurs. This is not response reaction, which will be a reflex that bypasses mental initiation.

The limitation is at the tactical level and human brain execution level, not at a style vs. style level.

All of your talk of whether or not I understand hybridization (which I have been combining arts for years) is missing the point. If I strike in a clinch but sprawl to a choke from a takedown attempt I most certainly will execute that hybridization effectively without hesitation, seamlessly. I do.

Ok. I get it I think.

Why is hand fighting and striking different things in the first place?

 

[drop bear]

Well, this raises the question of what are the principles upon which the new hybrid is built? Is one component system going to be the foundation, and the hybrid is built upon that set of principles? Will it be all principles of all the component systems? Will it be a limited subset of principles drawn from each of the components, but not the complete universe of principles? And if principles are taken from the different component systems, how well do they integrate and function as a consistent whole?

The answers to these questions will affect what works within the hybrid and how coherent the system is as a whole.

I'll give a vastly oversimplified example. Wing chun is seen as a "short range" striking method (i don't exactly agree with that, but don't want to get into the particulars at the moment, so as I said, this is a vastly oversimplified example). Tibetan white crane is seen as a "long range" punching method (again vastly oversimplified, and again I don't really agree with that, but it works simply to illustrate my point).

So let's say we want to create a new hybrid that combines these two methods, with the hope that we can become more effective when punching at both shorter and longer ranges.

What is the foundation of this method? Let's suppose we are more fluent with wing chun, so we use that as the foundation. We are less fluent with Tibetan white crane, but we are familiar with the body of primary techniques, and we want to integrate those into our hybrid, built on top of the wing chun base.

The problem is, white crane techniques are designed to work on a particular foundation, unique to the Tibetan system lineages. Yes, they are punches, but they are trained in a specific way, unique to white crane. THEY WILL NOT WORK IF PRACTICED ON A WING CHUN FOUNDATION. That is simply the truth. Tibetan white crane is not just a collection of techniques that are to be swapped in an out on a whim. It is a physical education that teaches you how to engage the body as a whole, and the specific techniques manifest that concept.

This hybrid would be a Frankenstein's monster, built with good intentions, but simply not functional.

And as two distinct methods that are primarily punching in focus, I say that if you really understand either of these systems, then you will understand that they are NOT limited to short or long ranges, respectively, but that either system can be equally functional at either range. So it actually makes no sense to try to hybridized them together. You are better off just working to gain a complete and deep understanding of one or the other system, and that is all you actually need. No need to clutter up your training by trying to hybridize them.

So you wouldnt just get to a range where you switch from crane to chun and back.

 

[Juany118]

So you wouldnt just get to a range where you switch from crane to chun and back.

As I understand it, its not a matter of range but rather how you use your body to generate the energy. Here is a video of a Tibetan White Crane form... hop to 2:00

Here is one of the forms from the WC I study (though a bit slower for demonstration purposes.)

The first uses a lot of circular generation of energy, the second is linear. I can see how one would have trouble integrating the two at the striking level.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

As I understand it, its not a matter of range but rather how you use your body to generate the energy. Here is a video of a Tibetan White Crane form... hop to 2:00

Here is one of the forms from the WC I study (though a bit slower for demonstration purposes.)

The first uses a lot of circular generation of energy, the second is linear. I can see how one would have trouble integrating the two at the striking level.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

8
More so than kickboxing and bjj? Which gets done pretty regularly. Otherwise you are kind of supposed to be moving circular and linear. the concept of 3 dimentional fighting.

 

[Flying Crane]

Oh agreed. As an example I stop in at a local Tien Shan Pai (Northern Long Fist Style) school in my town and chat with the Sifu. When I see the forms I say "yeah on the striking side not much you could do to some how bring WC in on this." However while their broad sword form is very similar to the unarmed, which SHOULD also make it incompatible with Kali sword/stick techniques I see a couple things that could actually prove useful and integrate well.

What it comes down to is that there needs to be some connections but I think you need to look at the principles of the biomechanics vs the philosophical principles and appearance.

As an example the Wing Chun I study and the arts with deeper grappling all share a similar take down. Basically you control the near limb of the opponent with your "far hand". You step in and behind the opponent while reaching your arm across their center near the head/neck, in WC and Kali we are striking as we "reach". You then simultaneously do what amounts to a reverse swing arm while simultaneously driving your knee up into the back of the knee/hamstring of the opponent.

Now in WC we will usually release the limb we are controlling to then "ground pound" but the biomechanics of transitioning to full two handed control of the limb all la the grappling arts I study flows just as naturally if you let it.

I think I sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, people allow philosophical principles and visual appearance get in the way of seeing the actual physical/biomechanical principles at play.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by philosophical principles, but I'm going to guess at it and say that, in practicing Chinese martial arts, the movement can look "stylized", which leads people to believe that a certain system needs to look a certain way when actually fighting. That is a misunderstanding. That stylized movement is actually simply an exaggerated movement, used as a training method and I will say that Tibetan crane is probably one of the clearest examples of this. It helps emphasize the physical movement principles, which helps learn and understand those principles and how they drive the movement. But in actual fighting, the exaggerated and stylized movement goes away, the physical principles can still be enacted within the technique, but the exaggeration is not needed, nor wanted. Fighting is just fighting, it all kinda looks the same to the uneducated eye.

 

[Flying Crane]

As I understand it, its not a matter of range but rather how you use your body to generate the energy. Here is a video of a Tibetan White Crane form... hop to 2:00

Here is one of the forms from the WC I study (though a bit slower for demonstration purposes.)

The first uses a lot of circular generation of energy, the second is linear. I can see how one would have trouble integrating the two at the striking level.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I don't like the white crane video, I don't think it's well done, but that's just me and I've seen very little on the internet that I felt was actually good.

However, it is my suspicion that wing chun potentially holds a lot of circular potential as well, tho I think most people don't practice it that way. It comes from the rooting, and depends on how one uses that root to rotate the torso. Then, even a straight punch is actually a circular technique because the power for the punch is circular, even tho the path of the punch is straight. In my mind, what determines if something is circular is not necessarily the path of the strike itself, it rather how power for that strike is generated. I think wing chun may also potentially have that, but it would look different from Tibetan crane.

 

[Juany118]

8
More so than kickboxing and bjj? Which gets done pretty regularly. Otherwise you are kind of supposed to be moving circular and linear. the concept of 3 dimentional fighting.

Well, and this is just me, it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts. If you look at the whole body of the people in each of those videos, often the body position is completely different, the way the whole body feeds energy into the punch is different. Biomechanically they are very different.

On the other hand, look to my description of the similarities in takedowns between the arts I have studied. They are all biomechanically similar and can lead easily into BJJ.

You can integrate a lot of stuff, I abosutely agree with you on that. All I am saying is this.

1. when you go to do so it's a lot easier if you find that place where the biomechanics are very similar to work the transition between two different games.
2. If it's going to be the "same" game (say striking) you want to make sure the overall body mechanics are similar. Say Thai Boxing and Western Boxing, or Filipino Panatukan and Thai Boxing, for efficiency and ease of learning.

 

[drop bear]

I don't like the white crane video, I don't think it's well done, but that's just me and I've seen very little on the internet that I felt was actually good.

However, it is my suspicion that wing chun potentially holds a lot of circular potential as well, tho I think most people don't practice it that way. It comes from the rooting, and depends on how one uses that root to rotate the torso. Then, even a straight punch is actually a circular technique because the power for the punch is circular, even tho the path of the punch is straight. In my mind, what determines if something is circular is not necessarily the path of the strike itself, it rather how power for that strike is generated. I think wing chun may also potentially have that, but it would look different from Tibetan crane.

There is nothing other than convention that stops a wing chun guy moving in a circular manner. It is not going to hurt their game to have more options.

If we wanted to worry about combining methods. We do not have to go past boxing. Which is in essance a bunch of different hybrids. All with different advantages and counters.

So to do one style you have to know more than one style.

mabye a better example.

 

[drop bear]

Well, and this is just me, it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts. If you look at the whole body of the people in each of those videos, often the body position is completely different, the way the whole body feeds energy into the punch is different. Biomechanically they are very different.

On the other hand, look to my description of the similarities in takedowns between the arts I have studied. They are all biomechanically similar and can lead easily into BJJ.

You can integrate a lot of stuff, I abosutely agree with you on that. All I am saying is this.

1. when you go to do so it's a lot easier if you find that place where the biomechanics are very similar to work the transition between two different games.
2. If it's going to be the "same" game (say striking) you want to make sure the overall body mechanics are similar. Say Thai Boxing and Western Boxing, or Filipino Panatukan and Thai Boxing, for efficiency and ease of learning.

Boxing which is probably the better example is a different game to boxing. Different body mechanics.

Most of the purist BJJ guys I have trained with will learn some striking and some crappy takedowns and just switch. Basically hoping their ground game is sufficient to win fights.

(Yes I am talking about you kron gracie)

 

[Juany118]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by philosophical principles, but I'm going to guess at it and say that, in practicing Chinese martial arts, the movement can look "stylized", which leads people to believe that a certain system needs to look a certain way when actually fighting. That is a misunderstanding. That stylized movement is actually simply an exaggerated movement, used as a training method and I will say that Tibetan crane is probably one of the clearest examples of this. It helps emphasize the physical movement principles, which helps learn and understand those principles and how they drive the movement. But in actual fighting, the exaggerated and stylized movement goes away, the physical principles can still be enacted within the technique, but the exaggeration is not needed, nor wanted. Fighting is just fighting, it all kinda looks the same to the uneducated eye.

By philosophical principles I mean things like this. The bread and butter of TWC is straight hand striking, punches, palms, bil sau etc. However you have Chin Na, elbows, more than a few kicks. If you get trapped in the "this is a punching art" you miss how the kick to the knee can end the fight and instead get stuck trying to get through his guard. You may completely miss the fact that the takedown that starts with a wrist grab is essentially the same one you learned in say Aikido or Judo and that once you get there you can easily transition to that deeper grappling game.

Getting rid of that purely philosophical anchor changes the fight from "I was striking...Now I am grappling" to simply "I am fighting."

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, and this is just me, it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts. If you look at the whole body of the people in each of those videos, often the body position is completely different, the way the whole body feeds energy into the punch is different. Biomechanically they are very different.

On the other hand, look to my description of the similarities in takedowns between the arts I have studied. They are all biomechanically similar and can lead easily into BJJ.

You can integrate a lot of stuff, I abosutely agree with you on that. All I am saying is this.

1. when you go to do so it's a lot easier if you find that place where the biomechanics are very similar to work the transition between two different games.
2. If it's going to be the "same" game (say striking) you want to make sure the overall body mechanics are similar. Say Thai Boxing and Western Boxing, or Filipino Panatukan and Thai Boxing, for efficiency and ease of learning.

Yeah i think a lot of the mistakes come when people try to integrate different striking methodologies. You need consistency, not seven different ways to power a straight punch. That just makes you scattered.

In terms of grappling, I imagine the principles are nearly the same and so I then ask, why integrate? If you've already go a good method, you don't need to call it by a different name just because of the similarity.

 

[Flying Crane]

I guess as I should say, if integrating another methodology makes a genuine improvement in what you are already doing, then I accept that it can be a good thing to do. But if it does not genuinely improve things, if it boils down to simply slapping a different name on what you are already doing, then I don't see any reason for it.

 

[Juany118]

There is nothing other than convention that stops a wing chun guy moving in a circular manner. It is not going to hurt their game to have more options.

If we wanted to worry about combining methods. We do not have to go past boxing. Which is in essance a bunch of different hybrids. All with different advantages and counters.

So to do one style you have to know more than one style.

The only problem with WC moving the body in a circular manner is that the defenses are very reliant on maintaining the centerline as well. Most of the techniques rely on being able to use, primarily, tendon and bone structure vs muscle to maintain the arm structure and then the excess force basically gets funneled to the ground. You will literally feel the hit not just at the point of impact but in your elbow, shoulder, and if it was strong enough, in your knees and then finally your feet.

In order for that to work, at least in my experience, you need to remain linear, otherwise you either A. see you arm structure collapse and thus take the hit, or you get knocked off balance with the "pivot point" being the waist/hips which makes you vulnerable to follow ups.

Now there are some "round attacks" that aren't uncommon. In TWC we will do round kicks, BUT the kick will end at the apex regardless of whether it hits. We also have a hook punch that is sometimes called the Buffalo punch. However the facing of the body always remains "straight" on because of the nature of the defenses.

 

[Juany118]

Yeah i think a lot of the mistakes come when people try to integrate different striking methodologies. You need consistency, not seven different ways to power a straight punch. That just makes you scattered.

In terms of grappling, I imagine the principles are nearly the same and so I then ask, why integrate? If you've already go a good method, you don't need to call it by a different name just because of the similarity.

Well to me integrating is a matter of this. TWC has takedowns but if I didn't already know other grappling and just did the TWC takedown I would have dropped the bad guy on his butt however I have also let him go on instinct and so now have to reengage in order to take him into custody. However due to the other arts I studied I can instinctively stay "married" to him and as he is falling on his butt flip him on his belly and apply an arm lock that allows the cuffing procedure to begin or, and this might make more sense to people like @drop bear, to simply get submission/pain compliance, though in my case it would be to control until another officer gets there to start cuffing, if I am not confident in being able to do that solo due to the circumstances.

In either case the integration of the "deeper" grappling game makes for safer control both for myself and the bad guy.

 

[Flying Crane]

The only problem with WC moving the body in a circular manner is that the defenses are very reliant on maintaining the centerline as well. Most of the techniques rely on being able to use, primarily, tendon and bone structure vs muscle to maintain the arm structure and then the excess force basically gets funneled to the ground. You will literally feel the hit not just at the point of impact but in your elbow, shoulder, and if it was strong enough, in your knees and then finally your feet.

In order for that to work, at least in my experience, you need to remain linear, otherwise you either A. see you arm structure collapse and thus take the hit, or you get knocked off balance with the "pivot point" being the waist/hips which makes you vulnerable to follow ups.

Now there are some "round attacks" that aren't uncommon. In TWC we will do round kicks, BUT the kick will end at the apex regardless of whether it hits. We also have a hook punch that is sometimes called the Buffalo punch. However the facing of the body always remains "straight" on because of the nature of the defenses.

It's just an idea I have floating around in my head, not sure if it actually makes sense. I would need to work face to face with a wing chun person to evaluate if my notion makes any sense. It's been a long time since I trained wing chun, and I can't say that I ever hit a deep understanding. But it seemed like we were mostly punching with the arms and not with the body. I'm thinking perhaps there should have been a way to engage the body and not just punch with the arms. That could have been my own lack of understanding, or it could have been a reflection of the training I received.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

it's easier I believe to transition from striking to grappling, in some cases, than between two different striking arts.

I had tried to integrate long fist and WC. It didn't work at all. First the long fist requires when you punch, your back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and front arm are all in a perfect straight line. In WC, you don't make that straight line at all.

 

[Juany118]

I had tried to integrate long fist and WC. It didn't work at all. First the long fist requires when you punch, your back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and from arm are all in a pefect straight line. In WC, you don't make that straight line at all.

Yeah. It can be like the difference between

And

While the long sword ends up more "front and center" because both hands are manipulating the blade WC ends up similar as it is based on making sure both hands can equally attack and defend against the same target (along with the defensive stuff I mentioned in my previous post.)

 

[Juany118]

It's just an idea I have floating around in my head, not sure if it actually makes sense. I would need to work face to face with a wing chun person to evaluate if my notion makes any sense. It's been a long time since I trained wing chun, and I can't say that I ever hit a deep understanding. But it seemed like we were mostly punching with the arms and not with the body. I'm thinking perhaps there should have been a way to engage the body and not just punch with the arms. That could have been my own lack of understanding, or it could have been a reflection of the training I received.

In the drills it feels that way, but you do get the body in. There is the shoulder of course and some hip rotation, but not enough to make it so you go "sideways" to the target. There are two ways I explain it because it's how it feels to me, not saying this is correct technical jargon, I am not a teacher.

First if you are punching while closing it can be similar to a quick thrust in fencing, so your bodies total forward momentum is adding to the strike.

Second, even if you are already in "the space" and you aren't moving forward anymore, the way you are punching is using the same mechanics of physics as other punches. Power= mass*velocity. Since, with proper structure, you are punching "from the heart" you keep your mass behind the punch, vs a more "round" strike, with more body English, that throws the weight behind the punch. Now there are more powerful punches out their than the WC punch but the method allows for, if properly trained, potentially faster follow-up.

The above video shows what I mean. The body is there, in practice, its simply not as overt.

Note none of the above is to claim a superiority in this particular type of straight punch. It's only trying to, in a basic way, to explain why and how it still manages to generate effective power.