Hybrid Arts

[Juany118]

Agreed. Perhaps the risk would be where the group with better "measurables" also has a talisman not held by the other. They would win due to tangible factors, but might attribute the win to their talisman. I can't think of an example of that, so it's purely hypothetical.

I think we are, to an extent, looking at things from two different angles. I am looking at them through the larger lense of historical hind sight. The fighter "in the moment", or the immediate aftermath, may attribute victory to some supernatural force, but once some time has passed you get to see what had the real impacts. It's this later lense I am using because that lense is what modern military and security forces use to decide what arts are trained or, if they created their own fighting system, what techniques from what arts are compiled into that system.

If we look at Krav Maga, MCMAP, they are in the compiling camp. Then you have the Special Operations Community where they get trained in a variety of Martial arts. They learn everything from the obvious, boxing and BJJ, to the not so obvious Wing Chun and Kali. It's actually interesting to check out the DoD bids when they get posted online to see what Martial Arts they are looking for an instructor in for the next training cycle.

 

[wayfaring]

So to expound a little on my viewpoints about hybrid arts and my primary art wing chun and secondary art bjj, I wanted to highlight a few bullet points that were my viewpoints about the topic and how they developed and changed over time. This also details my background for some I don't know as I'm new on the forum.

• hybrid arts are part of my life and martial arts experience. I moved around a lot, as a child of a military officer and then for work and volunteer work. I studied a Vietnamese kungfu first - vo lam, then as part of that chinese 5 animal forms and a few weapons, isshin ryu karate in college for courses, tae kwon do in college again where I moved 3 places, muy thai, boxing, Yip Man wing chun, Hung Fa Yi wing chun, BJJ, wrestling,submission grappling and MMA
• BJJ started due to no similar experience, a number of accumulated striking arts experience, and someone showing me "Gracies in Action" on VHS
• Sparring was always involved in all of these arts
• More recent MMA experiences are they are more oriented around scenario based skill - clinch, cage, ground top/bottom, rather than any art base
• As a beginning grappler and wing chun practitioner with a few years experience, I was always looking to implement "centerline" in grappling. Luckily, I also learned to implement "tapping out" early on.
• Over time people always talked about your "identity" - what your core response is
• Over time trying to find and apply universal principle - there was some - balance, compact positioning, energy conservation
• With my two arts I'm actively pursuing, when you have contact on the bridge (any kind of a bridge) in wing chun you seek to control, sink and strike
• With bjj / submission grappling / wrestling when you have contact on the bridge you are seeking to control, disrupt balance and take down.
• The goal or strategy to strike and pursue the finish of the fight with strikes in wing chun is very different than the goal or strategy of clinching, taking the fight to the ground, and finishing in BJJ.
• In practice, actively trying to pursue 2 diametrically opposed strategies at the same time would end up more times than not in freezing through inaction having too many options.
• Over time I intuitively formed the opinion, and hard wired it through a little practice as best I could of pursuing the primary strategy and options to a fully committed extent, then only allowing the mindset fallback on defense to my secondary art response

I know YMMV on a lot of the topic of hybrid arts in this discussion. Some arts blend better with others. Some people have better natural gifts at blending than others. I'm not perfect at isolating either - for instance I have been seen throwing a spinning wheel kick in sparring from my TKD days. Just thought maybe seeing my perspective over time might be helpful to some.

 

[Juany118]

[*]With my two arts I'm actively pursuing, when you have contact on the bridge (any kind of a bridge) in wing chun you seek to control, sink and strike
[*]With bjj / submission grappling / wrestling when you have contact on the bridge you are seeking to control, disrupt balance and take down.
[*]The goal or strategy to strike and pursue the finish of the fight with strikes in wing chun is very different than the goal or strategy of clinching, taking the fight to the ground, and finishing in BJJ.
[*]In practice, actively trying to pursue 2 diametrically opposed strategies at the same time would end up more times than not in freezing through inaction having too many options.

The key I think is not looking at the strategy of the art, focus on the tactics of the individual conflict, in other words, what is your purpose?

As I said before it may be a little easier for me to do so because TWC actually has takedowns, but it my purpose that makes going from striking as a bridge, to take down and control, "click". That purpose being taking a resisting suspect into custodial arrest. With that purpose in mind, everything a lap to control/takedown and maintaining that control simply happens. This "clicking" actually caused me issues when I first started studying WC.

My goal was (and is) to learn WC as an independent art so I can truly understand it and thus truly integrate it with other arts and TWC starts you with learning the striking game so you have that down, before the takedown game, but initially I had an issue. When I first started sparring I would do good WC as I bridged, but once I would inevitably transition into a take down and control when I should have continued pressing a striking attack. The WC bridging flowed naturally into the takedowns I already knew from other arts so it was instinctive. Now it took sometime but I can switch off "work mode" tactics and turn on "training" mode tactics.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

I noticed you tried to use them but failed because my method used measurable facts. See my response immediately above. The verifiable history of combat, when taken as a whole, shows that once battle is joined, such talismans aren't actually proven, rather disproven. Both sides either had them and so the victory went to the better army in terms of measurable factors. When one side had them and the other side lacked talismans but better measurable factors, the ones without talismans lost. There is a term in legal circles that also applies to looking at history, if you want a true picture and not a subjective one, "the totality of the circumstances."

In other words you raised, whether you knew it or not, a strawman argument. You tried to say "ah ha...People used to believe this". Well people go to war today say "I believe in this..." Otherwise the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" would not exist.

I tried to avoid the following but you opened the door and wouldn't just let it go so here goes. Do you realize the hypocrisy of your last few responses? You go on about "proven" pulling out my quotes from another thread, even throwing something I said at someone else because they seemed to speak against your point of view. I then mention you failed in that thread. Includeding you claiming I invented links that showed ignorance on your part (hi Glima) but you then say you like to watch me do backflips?

First posting stuff just to watch someone do backflips is practically the definition of an internet troll. Second I have been consistent, and this standing my ground, in terms of my responses here.

You are the one who has been all over the place with illogical responses between multiple threads. Your moving goal posts, claiming someone invented links and thus entire websites in moments because they cut he legs off a claim you made. Lastly throwing quotes I made at someone else. Those are the actions of the "backflipper", or a troll. Which are you?

And again you are just coming to any conclusion you want. You dont have measurable facts. If you had measurable facts this would be a different discussion. what you have is some stories of battle.

which dont prove what you want them to prove.

Talismans are measurable in the same way martial arts is. And that is not stories. But testing.

 

[Juany118]

And again you are just coming to any conclusion you want. You dont have measurable facts. If you had measurable facts this would be a different discussion. what you have is some stories of battle.

which dont prove what you want them to prove.

Talismans are measurable in the same way martial arts is. And that is not stories. But testing.

See the thing is if you let the available evidence lead you the conclusion forms itself. That is all I am doing. Does it contradict your preferred preconceptions yes. Not my problem. Regardless I am done with the circular arguments, ad hominems and strawman. You willfully ignore the fact that for something to be able to be considered in such a context you must be able to quantify it independently which you can not do with the supernatural. I assume it is willful because you learn this method of analysis in primary school science classes and really this has begun to bore me.

 

[drop bear]

See the thing is if you let the available evidence lead you the conclusion forms itself. That is all I am doing. Does it contradict your preferred preconceptions yes. Not my problem. Regardless I am done with the circular arguments, ad hominems and strawman. You willfully ignore the fact that for something to be able to be considered in such a context you must be able to quantify it independently which you can not do with the supernatural. I assume it is willful because you learn this method of analysis in primary school science classes and really this has begun to bore me.

You haven't quantified anything independently. That is the point . You came to the conclusion that if someone has used a method in battle and is still using it then it is a valid method.

Hundreds of years of testing in the battlefield i think you said.

You can quantify the supernatural. And you can quantify martial arts.

You test it.

The issue you have is you are not using a method that does that.

Which is why the supernatural fills all the requirements of evidence that your martial arts effectiveness does. And so like the supernatural is not supported by evidence.

You method of testing the veracity of a system fails.

 

[Juany118]

You haven't quantified anything independently. That is the point . You came to the conclusion that if someone has used a method in battle and is still using it then it is a valid method.

Hundreds of years of testing in the battlefield i think you said.

You can quantify the supernatural. And you can quantify martial arts.

You test it.

The issue you have is you are not using a method that does that.

Which is why the supernatural fills all the requirements of evidence that your martial arts effectiveness does. And so like the supernatural is not supported by evidence.

You method of testing the veracity of a system fails.

Actually I have, you just don't like the results. I can point to the HEMA manuals that were the basis of European warfare until a fair bit into the gun powder age. I can point to the fighting arts of Japan used during the pre-Meiji era in warfare. In short I can point to centuries of documented History. A History that actually acts as what in an analysis is called a Scientific control - Wikipedia when it comes to your illogical self serving rationalization because when both sides used superstition the one with the better tangible factors won. So we have one of two paths of logic to follow.
1. The lesson of history. Humanity evolves it's "tools" based on success and failure. What fails is thrown out, what succeeds it kept. Thus over time fighting methods change but those that remain have been proven by the test of time.

2. (Yours) history doesn't matter and must be dismissed because it is counter to a preconceived notion.

What is funny is that the two above are actually proof of what I said, you aren't looking at evidence, you are simply desperately trying to support a preconceived notion. How? Well in the other thread you assumed I was talking about striking arts and started raising grappling/wrestling arts used in warfare, not just in history but to this day, as proof you were right. Problem is you were ignorant of the arts you named.

Since the arts you named did not support your argument, and actually directly contradicted it, you stopped trying to argue from point 1 and simply moved the goal post to point 2 and then raised the nonsensical charm argument ignoring the fact that it is a scientific fact that charms and such can't be measured as much you are insisting they can to maintain your false premise.

#2 in this context is actually even more ridiculous and almost knee slapping funny because what your argument boils down to in the first paragraph

You came to the conclusion that if someone has used a method in battle and is still using it then it is a valid method.

is

"Looking at what worked in the past and then testing to see what works today using a sufficiently large data set is just stupid. I know what works best in combat from one incident with an idiot at a bar who may or may not have actually wanted to hurt me with a a knife. The Military and Security Forces of the World today don't know anything...They are just wasting their time with all that study of different martial arts, testing what works in actual combat and then creating a training program based on the results."

Do you see how just down right silly your argument is? You are saying from one encounter as a bouncer you know more than professional Warriors.

That is why I said I was bored because trying to debate with someone who is capable of allowing arrogance to allow them to use denial and willfully ignorance in such a way gets boring very quickly.

 

[anerlich]

TWC actually has takedowns

That's true, but it's not the first or even second or third place I would go if I wanted to get really good at taking people down.

Nearly all the TWC "takedowns" can be found as basic or intermediate techniques in other grappling arts. The takedown application of the last Chum Kil sequence is taught by my BJJ/MMA instructor, who never took a WC lesson in his life. He teaches it as a basic underhook and head control position, to optional knees, forearms etc. strikes to the takedown to knee on belly and optional further strikes or a submission. You'd learn this in one of your first three self defence classes at his gym.

The takedown Keith Mazza does in the TWC Chin-na video we discussed offline, which appears in ASLT and elsewhere - it appeared on my Facebook feed, so it's not really private anymore - is also a basic clinch takedown and counter to the 2 on 1 and other holds, which was one of the first I was taught in BJJ class.

Bil Jee and the dummy sets have a number of takedown applications as well, but like the others, if you don't drill them as much as you drill striking they probably aren't going to work for you. I used to take people down in sparring with the seventh dummy set foot sweep (a modified osotogari) fairly regularly, but I took them down a lot more once I'd developed a decent wrestling single leg takedown strategy.

I think the stuff clicked with you because of your background in controlling and taking down subjects and your previous experience in throwing arts, not because the TWC takedown game is fantastically awesome.

While it arguably it has takedowns, it definitely does not have realistic takedown defense.

 

[drop bear]

Actually I have, you just don't like the results. I can point to the HEMA manuals that were the basis of European warfare until a fair bit into the gun powder age. I can point to the fighting arts of Japan used during the pre-Meiji era in warfare. In short I can point to centuries of documented History. A History that actually acts as what in an analysis is called a Scientific control - Wikipedia .

See here is ultimately the problem you are having separating fact from fiction. We are not discussing some historical merits of a martial art. We are discussing the real time practical nature of specific movements in those arts.

You are suggesting a manual based on a war from history has done this.

A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.[1] This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.

You have minimised the variables by using this method? A war recorded in history does not have variables. We have variables just interparating the pictures. And that is provided the guy drawing the pictures interparated them correctly.

You can point to manuals all you want. Reading a hema manual will not give you the practical knoledge learning a skill like fighting requires. To gain actual knowlege like does this method work? you are suggesting I belive you because you read a book on it?

1. The lesson of history. Humanity evolves it's "tools" based on success and failure. What fails is thrown out, what succeeds it kept. Thus over time fighting methods change but those that remain have been proven by the test of time.

2. (Yours) history doesn't matter and must be dismissed because it is counter to a preconceived notion.

Ok lets look at you conclusion here. If humanity has had a hundred years of trial and error. And because of that the fighting methods that have remained are by definition are proven. Then you still dont explain why people are walking around with magical arm bands that stop bullets.

Now my conclusion.(And thanks for the made up one atributed to me) Is that the method of testing cannot be anywhere near as conclusive as you suggest. That the existence of magical arm bands also leads us to assume the existance of some pretty non effective martial arts concepts. Even if they were old.Even if they were used in battle and even if they were in a manual.

We would need to retest these methods.

Looking at what worked in the past and then testing to see what works today using a sufficiently large data set is just stupid. I know what works best in combat from one incident with an idiot at a bar who may or may not have actually wanted to hurt me with a a knife. The Military and Security Forces of the World today don't know anything...They are just wasting their time with all that study of different martial arts, testing what works in actual combat and then creating a training program based on the results."

Do you see how just down right silly your argument is? You are saying from one encounter as a bouncer you know more than professional Warriors.

Ok. More made up stuff and not what I said. And why you keep getting called on it.

I have argued that " I have used it and it works" is not valid since pretty much the day I started here. And have been fought to the death over it. I had the same issue with you when the one time you used downward elbows on a guy. Everybody was cut and dried untill I used it. Then it wasnt valid. It was just hypocrisy on your part. Honestly I have used it and read it in a manual somewhere really isn't that much better.

That is why I said I was bored because trying to debate with someone who is capable of allowing arrogance to allow them to use denial and willfully ignorance in such a way gets boring very quickly.

No you are using them as personal attacks that are irrelevant to the discussion. How you are feeling does not really reflect on your lack of solid evidence.

Remember this whole battlefield nonsense was used to justify your methods that you claimed would let you combat a guy with a knife when you are unarmed. This is your basic fall back that you are an unarmed vs knife guy.

I have done unarmed vs knife training. And I can tell you I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.

I have fought guys with knives and won and I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.

I am get out of there vs knife guy. Most people regardless of their training are not unarmed vs knife guys.

So if you want to be an unarmed vs knife guy. You need to bring more to the party than some bloody history books.

 

[Juany118]

That's true, but it's not the first or even second or third place I would go if I wanted to get really good at taking people down.

.

I only mention the takedowns that exist in TWC as a possible reason as to why I find it easier to transition from WC to the grappling I know from other arts than those who study other Lineages of WC. I will NEVER say TWC comes close to the grappling I know from Aikido and Judo. Also TWC has basically no ground game. I just wonder if the fact it has some grappling makes it easier for me to use it as a bridge to my Aikido and Judo training than WC from other sources.

 

[Juany118]

See here is ultimately the problem you are having separating fact from fiction. We are not discussing some historical merits of a martial art. We are discussing the real time practical nature of specific movements in those arts.

You are suggesting a manual based on a war from history has done this.

A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.[1] This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.

You have minimised the variables by using this method? A war recorded in history does not have variables. We have variables just interparating the pictures. And that is provided the guy drawing the pictures interparated them correctly.

You can point to manuals all you want. Reading a hema manual will not give you the practical knoledge learning a skill like fighting requires. To gain actual knowlege like does this method work? you are suggesting I belive you because you read a book on it?



Ok lets look at you conclusion here. If humanity has had a hundred years of trial and error. And because of that the fighting methods that have remained are by definition are proven. Then you still dont explain why people are walking around with magical arm bands that stop bullets.

Now my conclusion.(And thanks for the made up one atributed to me) Is that the method of testing cannot be anywhere near as conclusive as you suggest. That the existence of magical arm bands also leads us to assume the existance of some pretty non effective martial arts concepts. Even if they were old.Even if they were used in battle and even if they were in a manual.

We would need to retest these methods.



Ok. More made up stuff and not what I said. And why you keep getting called on it.

I have argued that " I have used it and it works" is not valid since pretty much the day I started here. And have been fought to the death over it. I had the same issue with you when the one time you used downward elbows on a guy. Everybody was cut and dried untill I used it. Then it wasnt valid. It was just hypocrisy on your part. Honestly I have used it and read it in a manual somewhere really isn't that much better.



No you are using them as personal attacks that are irrelevant to the discussion. How you are feeling does not really reflect on your lack of solid evidence.

Remember this whole battlefield nonsense was used to justify your methods that you claimed would let you combat a guy with a knife when you are unarmed. This is your basic fall back that you are an unarmed vs knife guy.

I have done unarmed vs knife training. And I can tell you I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.

I have fought guys with knives and won and I am not an unarmed vs knife guy.

I am get out of there vs knife guy. Most people regardless of their training are not unarmed vs knife guys.

So if you want to be an unarmed vs knife guy. You need to bring more to the party than some bloody history books.

Lots of words there all of which that avoid the facts/reality of both how one uses the scientific method to evaluate things in real life and the weaknesses in your argument try to dodge this. Such as having controls built into a wider experiment. Example, 10 cyclists use the same performance supplements. However you have two groups each group using a different training method and equipment. The Performance supplement is a controlled factor. In your case the talisman is a controlled factor. So the equipment and training method ends up as the deciding factor. Like I said, it's kinda boring.

 

[wayfaring]

The key I think is not looking at the strategy of the art, focus on the tactics of the individual conflict, in other words, what is your purpose?

As I said before it may be a little easier for me to do so because TWC actually has takedowns, but it my purpose that makes going from striking as a bridge, to take down and control, "click". That purpose being taking a resisting suspect into custodial arrest. With that purpose in mind, everything a lap to control/takedown and maintaining that control simply happens. This "clicking" actually caused me issues when I first started studying WC.

My goal was (and is) to learn WC as an independent art so I can truly understand it and thus truly integrate it with other arts and TWC starts you with learning the striking game so you have that down, before the takedown game, but initially I had an issue. When I first started sparring I would do good WC as I bridged, but once I would inevitably transition into a take down and control when I should have continued pressing a striking attack. The WC bridging flowed naturally into the takedowns I already knew from other arts so it was instinctive. Now it took sometime but I can switch off "work mode" tactics and turn on "training" mode tactics.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Hi Juany,

You are losing me. What do you mean by focusing on the purpose instead of the strategy of the art? To me it sounds like double-talk, and from a condescending place the tone sounds like.

The purpose of a self defense art is what? To keep you from getting your @$$ kicked.

So focus on that rather than building an instinctual reaction to either strike or clinch on bridge contact?

I don't know, man.

Your last paragraph I can relate to a little more. This is kind of what I was talking about. Because I grapple competitively, all of those matches I can't strike in the clinch. So I have to force the opposite reaction there that I am building in instinctively to accommodate a sport usage of an art. What works for me there is I kind of have to "forget" hand fighting techniques in the clinch from BJJ/Judo/Wrestling, and only keep that mindset for competitions. That is some real mental discipline to me. The only thing I have found that seems to help me there is that I keep a little more distance in hand fighting - like outside of normal chi sau range. Then transition through that range quickly.

 

[wayfaring]

That's true, but it's not the first or even second or third place I would go if I wanted to get really good at taking people down.

Nearly all the TWC "takedowns" can be found as basic or intermediate techniques in other grappling arts. The takedown application of the last Chum Kil sequence is taught by my BJJ/MMA instructor, who never took a WC lesson in his life. He teaches it as a basic underhook and head control position, to optional knees, forearms etc. strikes to the takedown to knee on belly and optional further strikes or a submission. You'd learn this in one of your first three self defence classes at his gym.

The takedown Keith Mazza does in the TWC Chin-na video we discussed offline, which appears in ASLT and elsewhere - it appeared on my Facebook feed, so it's not really private anymore - is also a basic clinch takedown and counter to the 2 on 1 and other holds, which was one of the first I was taught in BJJ class.

Bil Jee and the dummy sets have a number of takedown applications as well, but like the others, if you don't drill them as much as you drill striking they probably aren't going to work for you. I used to take people down in sparring with the seventh dummy set foot sweep (a modified osotogari) fairly regularly, but I took them down a lot more once I'd developed a decent wrestling single leg takedown strategy.

I think the stuff clicked with you because of your background in controlling and taking down subjects and your previous experience in throwing arts, not because the TWC takedown game is fantastically awesome.

While it arguably it has takedowns, it definitely does not have realistic takedown defense.

anerlich knows what's up here. as a bjj black belt he has more than a surface understanding of the clinch, takedown, and grappling concepts.

I have a little exposure to TWC, through forum discussion and also Dale Vits in our Hung Fa Yi instructors group is also from a TWC sifu background. He does the TWC 1st form on the SNT comparison video we have out there on another thread. Of the TWC leadership I'm familiar with Phil Redmond, Keith Mazza, and Victor Parlati. I haven't met GM Cheung.

As a little interesting side note, many people have compared HFY and TWC in the past. Some have even spread rumors as to some secret connection of instructors. This past year, GM Garrett Gee took the time in a full weekend worksh op with the instructors to highlight for us the difference. One key area is basically we do not teach or utilize the TWC blind side concept. As far as TWC history, after that weekend my perspective is that I believe what GM Cheung has said - he was taught by Yip Man, and taught different concepts.

anerlich awesome breakdown of these crossover areas. In general what I have seen is very beginner or fundamental grappling techniques trying to be taught as "anti-grappling". So you have a rank beginner trying to stop even a high school wrestler with very fundamental techniques and not very much skill via repetition. It usually fails in a MMA, free sparring, or self defense scenario.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hi Juany,

You are losing me. What do you mean by focusing on the purpose instead of the strategy of the art? To me it sounds like double-talk, and from a condescending place the tone sounds like.

The purpose of a self defense art is what? To keep you from getting your @$$ kicked.

So focus on that rather than building an instinctual reaction to either strike or clinch on bridge contact?

I don't know, man.

Your last paragraph I can relate to a little more. This is kind of what I was talking about. Because I grapple competitively, all of those matches I can't strike in the clinch. So I have to force the opposite reaction there that I am building in instinctively to accommodate a sport usage of an art. What works for me there is I kind of have to "forget" hand fighting techniques in the clinch from BJJ/Judo/Wrestling, and only keep that mindset for competitions. That is some real mental discipline to me. The only thing I have found that seems to help me there is that I keep a little more distance in hand fighting - like outside of normal chi sau range. Then transition through that range quickly.

I think his point is, if you focus on the specific tactics of an art (angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA) or its overall strategy (mostly strikes vs. mostly grappling), those may cause conflicts. If, instead, you focus on the situation and your needs (so, again, for him, it's usually getting someone into cuffs), then the arts blend together more naturally, since you simply instinctively choose each next move based on what will get you closer to that goal.

 

[Juany118]

Hi Juany,

You are losing me. What do you mean by focusing on the purpose instead of the strategy of the art? To me it sounds like double-talk, and from a condescending place the tone sounds like.

The purpose of a self defense art is what? To keep you from getting your @$$ kicked.

So focus on that rather than building an instinctual reaction to either strike or clinch on bridge contact?

I don't know, man.

Your last paragraph I can relate to a little more. This is kind of what I was talking about. Because I grapple competitively, all of those matches I can't strike in the clinch. So I have to force the opposite reaction there that I am building in instinctively to accommodate a sport usage of an art. What works for me there is I kind of have to "forget" hand fighting techniques in the clinch from BJJ/Judo/Wrestling, and only keep that mindset for competitions. That is some real mental discipline to me. The only thing I have found that seems to help me there is that I keep a little more distance in hand fighting - like outside of normal chi sau range. Then transition through that range quickly.

Is not double talk, it's the old soldier current cop talking. There is a difference, in those fields, between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the overall plan. As an example WWII Pacific theater with Carrier based air superiority supporting an island hopping campaign. However when the troops hit the beach it's a multitude of squads using small unit tactics, as they are storming that beach, to achieve the goals of the overall strategy.

Now remember one thing, while no where near as in depth as the Aikido or Judo I have studied TWC does have grappling and takedowns. This is important for establishing context.

When determining tactics one needs to know the immediate goal you are trying to achieve. So if my goal is simply beating my opponent I may just focus on the striking aspects and use tactics/techniques to support that. If my goal is to apprehend someone, within the rules governing my use of force, I may simply use the striking tactically as a bridge to enter grappling.

Now would the transition from striking to grappling be as smooth with other styles of Wing Chun? I won't comment because the bulk of my personal experience is in TWC.

I also think remember I see it as a transitioning is also important. It's not applying Wing Chun principles to my grappling. I use WC to enter/bridge but once I am grappling my mind set is an amalgamation of Aikido, Judo and Kali. The fact TWC has grappling (even if it would be seen as simply entry level to intermediate in Aikido and Judo as @anerlich noted quite rightly) simply makes that transition feel smooth to me BUT it is a transition from one art to another, not trying to apply the principles of one art onto another.

 

[Juany118]

I think his point is, if you focus on the specific tactics of an art (angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA) or its overall strategy (mostly strikes vs. mostly grappling), those may cause conflicts. If, instead, you focus on the situation and your needs (so, again, for him, it's usually getting someone into cuffs), then the arts blend together more naturally, since you simply instinctively choose each next move based on what will get you closer to that goal.

Exactly. I think what happens is that sometimes people confabulate strategy and tactics. While tactics are informed by and serve strategy, they are still a thing in and of itself.

 

[wayfaring]

I think his point is, if you focus on the specific tactics of an art (angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA) or its overall strategy (mostly strikes vs. mostly grappling), those may cause conflicts. If, instead, you focus on the situation and your needs (so, again, for him, it's usually getting someone into cuffs), then the arts blend together more naturally, since you simply instinctively choose each next move based on what will get you closer to that goal.

Right. I think my point was that I am experiencing the exact same scenarios with contact on the bridge utilizing 2 arts with different goals - 1 to clinch, take down, and the other to strike and maintain control. No, 2 arts to not blend together more naturally where you simply instinctively choose each next move that will get you closer to that goal, when "that goal" is in fact "2 goals".

You sound like you understand another guys posts well enough to explain them but don't understand mine.

 

[wayfaring]

Is not double talk, it's the old soldier current cop talking. There is a difference, in those fields, between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the overall plan. As an example WWII Pacific theater with Carrier based air superiority supporting an island hopping campaign. However when the troops hit the beach it's a multitude of squads using small unit tactics, as they are storming that beach, to achieve the goals of the overall strategy.

Now remember one thing, while no where near as in depth as the Aikido or Judo I have studied TWC does have grappling and takedowns. This is important for establishing context.

When determining tactics one needs to know the immediate goal you are trying to achieve. So if my goal is simply beating my opponent I may just focus on the striking aspects and use tactics/techniques to support that. If my goal is to apprehend someone, within the rules governing my use of force, I may simply use the striking tactically as a bridge to enter grappling.

Now would the transition from striking to grappling be as smooth with other styles of Wing Chun? I won't comment because the bulk of my personal experience is in TWC.

I also think remember I see it as a transitioning is also important. It's not applying Wing Chun principles to my grappling. I use WC to enter/bridge but once I am grappling my mind set is an amalgamation of Aikido, Judo and Kali. The fact TWC has grappling (even if it would be seen as simply entry level to intermediate in Aikido and Judo as @anerlich noted quite rightly) simply makes that transition feel smooth to me BUT it is a transition from one art to another, not trying to apply the principles of one art onto another.

Now there is a new term you are inserting here, strategy and "tactics" that somehow we are confused about but you use interchangeably with "purpose" but are completely enlightened on?

Come on now, man. Double-talk.

TWC's grappling and takedowns are basically cr@p, as you just heard pronounced by a TWC sifu that is also a BJJ black belt. I actually haven't seen them, so can't comment but the guy commenting is solid. I would recommend Gracie Combatives for LEO's to train self defense grappling, instead of TWC forms.

As a LEO apprehending someone you are talking about a completely different thing chasing down a perp and cuffing him than protecting yourself in a self-defense scenario where your pirmary reaction may or may not work. Although from what I have observed I will agree that due to the poor conditioning and inadequate training of LEO's in general, they may get confused thinking their life is in danger after a long sprint and struggle to handcuff a perp.

 

[Juany118]

Right. I think my point was that I am experiencing the exact same scenarios with contact on the bridge utilizing 2 arts with different goals - 1 to clinch, take down, and the other to strike and maintain control. No, 2 arts to not blend together more naturally where you simply instinctively choose each next move that will get you closer to that goal, when "that goal" is in fact "2 goals".

You sound like you understand another guys posts well enough to explain them but don't understand mine.

My point, and I think @gpseymour understands this from previous conversations is that while TWC is a style of WC (and thus focuses more on striking) there is also training in grappling for actual use, not simply for control to strike as I learned under Gary Lam's version of WSLVT. As stated the grappling at best basic to intermediate level when compared to grappling arts but the mindset is built in to go from striking to grappling if required.

Because of this it's not a matter of saying "WC is for striking" because I have been trained you can also use it for grappling. The difference is my grappling toolbox is bigger because I have studied grappling arts. Additionally I have the ingrained habit from almost 20 years (19 in Feb to be exact) to end every fight with grappling/cuffing. As such I train with this in mind.

Now I may also be lucky. My Sifu/Guro is someone who knows the value of making sure the students also know the grappling game of TWC. He then expands on this in Kali, likely because if you are unarmed and your opponent is armed being able to use the grappling game is pretty much a necessity. We are actually hosting a seminar in Feb on combatives grappling (fast bridging to takedowns, air and blood chokes, dislocations etc.) with and with out knives in Feb. The curriculum will be a combination of TWC and Kali, the later having a more evolved grappling game than the former.

 

[wayfaring]

Exactly. I think what happens is that sometimes people confabulate strategy and tactics. While tactics are informed by and serve strategy, they are still a thing in and of itself.

What I think happens is that people get all confused over strategy and tactics to the point they freeze up and get punched in the keester.

Witnessing that is a thing in and of itself.