Hybrid Arts

[wckf92]

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.

I disagree...but whatever

 

[Juany118]

I disagree...but whatever

I think a better example is the crane form video I linked. There at the end of the punch a northern long fist guy can end up standing sideways like an Olympic foil fencer on a thrust. That, at least to my mind would compromise a lot of WC stuff related to structure.

 

[Flying Crane]

I disagree...but whatever

I'm trying to understand what it is you disagree with.

Kung fu Wang states that he tried to integrate wing chun punching with longfist punching, and he was not successful. Given that the experience was his, I would say he is the best one to decide if he was successful or not.

By disagreeing, are you stating that it is your belief that he in fact WAS successful, unbeknownst to him?

 

[Flying Crane]

I think a better example is the crane form video I linked. There at the end of the punch a northern long fist guy can end up standing sideways like an Olympic foil fencer on a thrust. That, at least to my mind would compromise a lot of WC stuff related to structure.

I don't feel it is a valid comparison because the reason one hits that position is very different between fencing and white crane or longfist.

In fencing, it is a lunging thrust, and the other hand is back as a way to hold balance, as well as to provide a slimmer profile to the opponent, while thrusting in with the tip of the blade.

In crane, the body is rotated, driven from the feet and legs, up thru the torso. The rotation gives power to the punch, and is not done by leaning. The back hand swings back as a training mechanism, this is one of those exaggerations I mentioned earlier. It over-emphasizes the rotation by swinging that arm back. This helps develops skill with the principles, but drops away and is no longer exaggerated in actual combat.

The posture itself appears somewhat similar, but how you get there is very different and makes any similarity only superficial.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I disagree...but whatever

This is the long fist beginner level training requirement. The main purpose is to be able to stretch your body to the maximum and have the maximum reach.

There was one sparring that my opponent didn't know that my fist could reach to his face. When I make my back shoulder, chest, front shoulder, and front arm into a straight line, my fist could hit on his face. That's why the style is called "long" fist.

Also this type of punch is difficult to integrate with the WC system.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I think by "philosophical principles" he was referring to, for instance, the gentle harmony of most of Ueshiba's Aikido. That's not a physical principle of the art - it's not what makes the techniques work. There are also those semi-philosophical principles like "don't do x", that exist simply because "x" doesn't lead into prime technical territory for that art. There's nothing really wrong with "x" - it's just not a good thing within the range of that art. A good example of this might be, "never go to the ground". It's a good principle for arts with no ground game, but for someone in BJJ, it's certainly not a "never" principle.

 

[wckf92]

...... 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.

Sorry, should have been more clear...my problem is with broad statements like this. I think what KFW meant to say was that in "his" WC..."he" doesn't make a straight line like this. But, this is kind of off topic so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I agree on the first sentence. My answer to the second is usually, "that's a cool technique!" Seriously, I occasionally see a technique that fits with our principles (and whose mechanics are an easy translation for me), and immediately start looking at it to see if it's a good fit. I won't add it to the official curriculum (at least, I haven't yet - maybe after a few years of seeing how it works and fits for students), but it certainly becomes part of what I teach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Well and concisely put.

 

[Juany118]

I don't feel it is a valid comparison because the reason one hits that position is very different between fencing and white crane or longfist.

In fencing, it is a lunging thrust, and the other hand is back as a way to hold balance, as well as to provide a slimmer profile to the opponent, while thrusting in with the tip of the blade.

In crane, the body is rotated, driven from the feet and legs, up thru the torso. The rotation gives power to the punch, and is not done by leaning. The back hand swings back as a training mechanism, this is one of those exaggerations I mentioned earlier. It over-emphasizes the rotation by swinging that arm back. This helps develops skill with the principles, but drops away and is no longer exaggerated in actual combat.

The posture itself appears somewhat similar, but how you get there is very different and makes any similarity only superficial.

I was referring purely to body position. Thanks to swashbuckler movies I think more people are familiar with the fencer in such a sidesways stance, regardless of the purpose. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Then don't rely on chun defences when moving what basically sounds like offline. What was it? White crane? Will have its own defences

So you just go straight line chun offline crane.

 

[drop bear]

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.

You don't reach and punch. You travel your whole body to where you need to be and punch from there.

That is also how you cripple people with body punches.

Amateur boxing has similar ideas.

kostya tszu who fought very much in that sort of manner. vz Zab Juda who fought in that evasive looping style.

 

[Flying Crane]

I was referring purely to body position. Thanks to swashbuckler movies I think more people are familiar with the fencer in such a sidesways stance, regardless of the purpose. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

No worries, and I just saw it as an opportunity to educate the readership a bit about Tibetan crane, as it is somewhat rare and is prone to being misunderstood, due to that punching methodology

 

[Juany118]

Then don't rely on chun defences when moving what basically sounds like offline. What was it? White crane? Will have its own defences

So you just go straight line chun offline crane.

You can do that, correct. I guess I would ask why though? It is kinda a myth that WC, at least my WC, lacks a "long game". It has a long game, but it's more linear than "sweeping". My personal take is that "long fist" vs "short fist" has more to do with the stances. As an example how often do you see a Boxer or MMAer have a punch ending like this

It's not so much the punch but the stance because here we see...

So long as both hands are engaging the target (this is actually via Inosanto's some of the training Silva has undertaken) the principles are maintained. So really it's about what the entire body is doing.

As such WC striking can be pretty effective, it's weakness (if you actually pressure test properly which we both agree on) is that if your striking game fails it lacks in takedown defense and ground game. That is a gap that NEEDS to be filled

Also note I am talking about my purpose. I don't wear gloves at work and am not looking to "KO" someone. I am looking to defend myself and bridge from that defense to taking someone into custody. So what serves my purpose will obviously be different than the purpose of someone else when it comes to combining arts in practice.

 

[Juany118]

I think by "philosophical principles" he was referring to, for instance, the gentle harmony of most of Ueshiba's Aikido. That's not a physical principle of the art - it's not what makes the techniques work. There are also those semi-philosophical principles like "don't do x", that exist simply because "x" doesn't lead into prime technical territory for that art. There's nothing really wrong with "x" - it's just not a good thing within the range of that art. A good example of this might be, "never go to the ground". It's a good principle for arts with no ground game, but for someone in BJJ, it's certainly not a "never" principle.

Exactly. And sometimes it's not as obvious as Ueshiba's Philosophy, it can come from confabulating different ideas. Example one of the ideas from WC are attack/disrupt the opponent's centerline. Since the centerline is an axis that runs through the center of the body to the ground can I not "attack" it from a flank? Can I not "disrupt" it using the takedown I described earlier that is in the Wing Chun I study? Some though will then take seperate ideas, that have their proper place, and confabulating the two.

I actually took a chance a little bit ago. When my training partner became to "comfortable" and did things that made them especially vulnerable to takedowns, I went and started a take down to prove the point. They looked at the Sifu and his response was not "Juany you broke the drill". Rather "Partner, you left yourself open for that".

My Sifu is a bit odd though. If someone's footwork leaves em open he doesn't mind if you give them a LIGHT "cup check.". Thing is, until he decided to go "private" due to specialized training that has him CEO of his own LLC Consultancy as his day job, he came from the same world I currently work in so he isn't what I have experienced as a "typical" TMA instructor.

That alone may influence my thoughts on the matter at hand.

 

[drop bear]

You can do that, correct. I guess I would ask why though? It is kinda a myth that WC, at least my WC, lacks a "long game". It has a long game, but it's more linear than "sweeping". My personal take is that "long fist" vs "short fist" has more to do with the stances. As an example how often do you see a Boxer or MMAer have a punch ending like this

It's not so much the punch but the stance because here we see...

So long as both hands are engaging the target (this is actually via Inosanto's some of the training Silva has undertaken) the principles are maintained. So really it's about what the entire body is doing.

As such WC striking can be pretty effective, it's weakness (if you actually pressure test properly which we both agree on) is that if your striking game fails it lacks in takedown defense and ground game. That is a gap that NEEDS to be filled

Also note I am talking about my purpose. I don't wear gloves at work and am not looking to "KO" someone. I am looking to defend myself and bridge from that defense to taking someone into custody. So what serves my purpose will obviously be different than the purpose of someone else when it comes to combining arts in practice.

Ok. Before we start we are not actually comparing long fist with chun. We are comparing martial arts that contain different principles.

This could be any martial arts. It doesn't matter. For any of this to work we pretty much have to concede that two different styles have different games.

Not one style fills all ranges. Or you are correct you would not need to hybrid.

So whether it is a long game or a sweeping game or whatever doesn't matter so long as there are two different games.

Now whether or not it fits your purpose also kind of doesn't matter.
Seriously gloves? Who cares?

We are dealing with concepts. So you may not use all the elements of both arts to arrest someone. But you may need both elements to understand how to make your system work.

 

[Juany118]

Ok. Before we start we are not actually comparing long fist with chun. We are comparing martial arts that contain different principles.

This could be any martial arts. It doesn't matter. For any of this to work we pretty much have to concede that two different styles have different games.

Not one style fills all ranges. Or you are correct you would not need to hybrid.

So whether it is a long game or a sweeping game or whatever doesn't matter so long as there are two different games.

Now whether or not it fits your purpose also kind of doesn't matter.
Seriously gloves? Who cares?

We are dealing with concepts. So you may not use all the elements of both arts to arrest someone. But you may need both elements to understand how to make your system work.

Okay, I see that point. With enough time and effort in training I will concede that the right person could likely combine arts that perform the same practical function but use clearly divergent principles.

The way my brain works though I do a cost/benefit analysis. If I felt there was a major "hole" I would prefer to search out an art that shares principles. Otherwise I would need to see a clear advantage in certain circumstances to try and fit two striking methods, that operate under different principles, together to justify the time it would take to integrate because that can be more than a little bit of time away from there other training one can do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, I see that point. With enough time and effort in training I will concede that the right person could likely combine arts that perform the same practical function but use clearly divergent principles.

The way my brain works though I do a cost/benefit analysis. I would need to see a clear advantage in certain circumstances to try and fit two striking methods, that operate under different principles together, to justify the time it would take to integrate because that can be more than a little bit of time away from there other training one can do.

Agreed. I could see borrowing a couple of "gap filler" techniques from another art/style, but picking up an entire second art that covers much of the same ground isn't pragmatic. Mind you, many martial artists pursue new learning for purposes that aren't entirely pragmatic, so there's no reason someone couldn't do exactly that.

 

[wayfaring]

A little friendly advice for you: I've isolated some examples from your post, where you use language that is condescending and abrasive. If you are actually interested in honest discussion, and are not here to simply stir things up, I suggest you resist the urge to use such language.

Most of the people here are good folks, enthusiastic and willing to discuss what they do and what their ideas are. You don't need to agree with all, or any, of what is said. But you can disagree and discuss and debate without using such language and without slinging a lot of attitude around. You'll get a better reception.

From my perspective, I give back the energy that is given me here. You are so nice to point out my condescending and perceived abrasive responses without any acknowledgement or validation to point out the condescending posts that elicited these responses after I initiated an honest discussion on my changing viewpoint over time of the hybridization of arts.

Do you acknowledge what I am saying here? Or insist on glossing it over?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

your goal may not always be the goal of your style.

Here is an example. The goal of my major style Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) is to take my opponent down without going down with him. If I use that goal as guideline, I'll never be able to

- use a throw to obtain dominate position.
- use dominate to start the ground game.

The following clip may be a big no no from my SC teacher point of view. But to me, it's a big improvement.