Is it me or...

[Danny T]

But chun for some insane reason don't want to create good angles with footwork even though they are conceptually founded on creating good angles.

You are correct in that there are some who just move straight forward. Many of us angle with proper footwork.

It is what you are supposed to do. But if you are fighting for the center it is precisely what you are not doing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know.
We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core. If you are fighting using some of the drills designed to teach the lines, to control the line with forward pressure and to strike into the opponent as in Sil Lum Tao as a beginner then you are correct. And you will get destroyed in a fight. Those drills are not for fighting but to learn to feel, control, pressure, maintain.

I have done a month or so and the footwork and concepts are there. In fact very similar to boxing. And then sparring puts you guys on train tracks.

A month or so.
And you know & understand the Wing Chun system.
Sorry but your remarks state you don't have but a cursory knowledge and very weak grasp or understanding of which you opine.

 

[Mephisto]

You are correct in that there are some who just move straight forward. Many of us angle with proper footwork.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know.
We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core. If you are fighting using some of the drills designed to teach the lines, to control the line with forward pressure and to strike into the opponent as in Sil Lum Tao as a beginner then you are correct. And you will get destroyed in a fight. Those drills are not for fighting but to learn to feel, control, pressure, maintain.

A month or so.
And you know & understand the Wing Chun system.
Sorry but your remarks state you don't have but a cursory knowledge and very weak grasp or understanding of which you opine.

This response is typical in a WC discussion. 1)everyone we've seen is doing it wrong but your school does it right. 2) lots of concepts and theory on center but little demonstration on a resisting partner 3) the criticism that if you haven't trained extensively in WC you are unable to comment on it.

These are just my observations over the years. Some may have reasonable explanations and some may be oversimications but they are common themes. You can understand a system all day but if you can't apply it your knowledge is useless unless you can use it to teach someone who can apply it. Somewhere along the line application is a necessity.

 

[geezer]

...Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know.
...We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core..

Unfortunately, Drop Bear may be correct, based on his experience in WC, at least up to this point. In my training, really applying angling was not taught for a long time. Oh sure we did side-stepping and angling in some drills and so on. But I don't think any of that would have made sense to me with only a month or two in.

One thing about traditional martial arts training is that it's a long slow process. Maybe too slow. Ironically, it was another art, Escrima, that really helped me make my WC work for me. Funny that. The Escrima I trained had a lot of boxing influence. Seeing the same angling principles used in another way in another art made me more aware of what I should have been doing all along in WC.

 

[Punchy]

This response is typical in a WC discussion. 1)everyone we've seen is doing it wrong but your school does it right. 2) lots of concepts and theory on center but little demonstration on a resisting partner 3) the criticism that if you haven't trained extensively in WC you are unable to comment on it.

These are just my observations over the years. Some may have reasonable explanations and some may be oversimications but they are common themes. You can understand a system all day but if you can't apply it your knowledge is useless unless you can use it to teach someone who can apply it. Somewhere along the line application is a necessity.

WC is a very basic looking and simplistic looking art on the surface. And because of this, people erroneously think they understand it and can use it having had little or no exposure to it.
What you end up with is a very shallow interpretation and mimicking of movements from the forms and their "applications".

You can't fully understand WC until you are able to see it from a big picture perspective, that is, seeing it from the top down...not from the bottom up....But then, isn't this true of every discipline, MA or otherwise?

 

[Mephisto]

WC is a very basic looking and simplistic looking art on the surface. And because of this, people erroneously think they understand it and can use it having had little or no exposure to it.
What you end up with is a very shallow interpretation and mimicking of movements from the forms and their "applications".

You can't fully understand WC until you are able to see it from a big picture perspective, that is, seeing it from the top down...not from the bottom up.

That may be, I just haven't seen a lot of evidence that WC guys can practice what they preach, but I have seen some good video out there. It just seems there's a lot more videos of guys talking theory and concepts than anything else. I've seen the same thing in other arts too including the FMA I train. Some guys have a need to over intellectualize what we do and over explain when they should be training.

 

[Punchy]

. Some guys have a need to over intellectualize what we do and over explain when they should be training.

Amen brother! WC, like so many others, is a very theory driven art. And because of this, we tend to attract a bunch of.......NERDS!. There I said it.
Its OK to intellectualize, talk theory, discuss principles, all of that is fine. But first, shut up and train. Put in some good old fashioned hard work, or dare I say it: Kung Fu, then, while we're catching our breath and licking our wounds we can talk about it.

 

[Danny T]

This response is typical in a WC discussion. 1)everyone we've seen is doing it wrong but your school does it right. 2) lots of concepts and theory on center but little demonstration on a resisting partner 3) the criticism that if you haven't trained extensively in WC you are unable to comment on it.

These are just my observations over the years. Some may have reasonable explanations and some may be oversimications but they are common themes. You can understand a system all day but if you can't apply it your knowledge is useless unless you can use it to teach someone who can apply it. Somewhere along the line application is a necessity.

That it is WC we are discussing is irrelevant it is applicable to any training method. That his understanding is incorrect is relevant and that has nothing to do with my school is right. That you have not seen good wc doesn't mean wc is isn't good and of course anyone can comment on it. However, that does not mean one's opinion is correct. And opinion no matter what drives it is but an opinion and can still be incorrect.
I have written in many past posts that there are many who never move past drilling and into function. Forms, drills, application. You do not apply with drills. People see drills, do drills, and stay stuck in the drill. If one only trains in the SLT aspect of wc training then yes you will fight straight on and probably on go straight forward. Great but you are still a beginner in WC and it doesn't matter how long one has been training. If you have not gone past SLT training then you are still a beginner. When one moves into learning the Chum Kiu lesson and can function with footwork, angles, body unity, then one starts to gain an understanding of applying the movements and positions. But you are still not fighting with it as yet. If all you have seen is someone using the drills from SLT and some of the drills out of CK fighting then I agree they will not be very good. But that doesn't mean wc is poor.

I have had 3 instructors in WC. The first got me started and in the beginning I thought he was good. In time I came to realize he was but a good beginner but he was very good at what he had. I sought out another who was a much better instructor and I quickly learned I had much more to train and practice. In time again I came to realize he was an outstanding driller but under pressure many of the principles we spouted were not being utilized. (often speed and strength was the winner not proper application of the drills)
My 3rd instructor showed me how low level my wc knowledge and understanding was. It wasn't the WC system's fault it was the lack of knowledge and understand my first 2 instructor had. One can not pass on what one does not have. Today my WC is good. Can it still be better? Absolutely. I have students who are better than I am. That probably makes me a better instructor than applier. But then at my age my advanced students should be quicker, faster, stronger, and better at applying.

 

[Mephisto]

That it is WC we are discussing is irrelevant it is applicable to any training method. That his understanding is incorrect is relevant and that has nothing to do with my school is right. That you have not seen good wc doesn't mean wc is isn't good and of course anyone can comment on it. However, that does not mean one's opinion is correct. And opinion no matter what drives it is but an opinion and can still be incorrect.
I have written in many past posts that there are many who never move past drilling and into function. Forms, drills, application. You do not apply with drills. People see drills, do drills, and stay stuck in the drill. If one only trains in the SLT aspect of wc training then yes you will fight straight on and probably on go straight forward. Great but you are still a beginner in WC and it doesn't matter how long one has been training. If you have not gone past SLT training then you are still a beginner. When one moves into learning the Chum Kiu lesson and can function with footwork, angles, body unity, then one starts to gain an understanding of applying the movements and positions. But you are still not fighting with it as yet. If all you have seen is someone using the drills from SLT and some of the drills out of CK fighting then I agree they will not be very good. But that doesn't mean wc is poor.

I have had 3 instructors in WC. The first got me started and in the beginning I thought he was good. In time I came to realize he was but a good beginner but he was very good at what he had. I sought out another who was a much better instructor and I quickly learned I had much more to train and practice. In time again I came to realize he was an outstanding driller but under pressure many of the principles we spouted were not being utilized. (often speed and strength was the winner not proper application of the drills)
My 3rd instructor showed me how low level my wc knowledge and understanding was. It wasn't the WC system's fault it was the lack of knowledge and understand my first 2 instructor had. One can not pass on what one does not have. Today my WC is good. Can it still be better? Absolutely. I have students who are better than I am. That probably makes me a better instructor than applier. But then at my age my advanced students should be quicker, faster, stronger, and better at applying.

Makes sense to me. Like I said earlier their are many within my FMA system that think they are advanced but actually have very limited knowledge and understanding of the art. Some are very good at what they have and some have the strength and athleticism to use it well, but there are higher levels. I can see where you're coming from, hopefully things will someday change about how things are presented to those outside of the system.

 

[Danny T]

Makes sense to me.

All good.

Like I said earlier their are many within my FMA system that think they are advanced but actually have very limited knowledge and understanding of the art. Some are very good at what they have and some have the strength and athleticism to use it well, but there are higher levels. I can see where you're coming from, hopefully things will someday change about how things are presented to those outside of the system.

The thing is, this can be said of every system/style.

Had a 20 something in last week for checking us out. During the session it was obvious he had some training. Either he had just started or it was low level. (not knocking him just my observation)
"So what have you been training and for how long?"
His answer, "about 4 years of kickboxing".
Me: (in my thoughts, No Way) So I ask, "any fights?"
Him- "5"
My thoughts, 'WOW' So I had to ask, "what is your record?"
"1 & 4"
I didn't ask but my thought was, "how did you win 1?"
Here is a young man who has been training in a kickboxing format for about 4 years. Form was weak, footwork was terrible, punches were sloppy, jaw was open but he could throw punches and kick with a semblance of technique. His coach though him good enough to have him enter 5 matches. Does this make kickboxing a poor form of fighting? No, but his poor because of either he exaggerated his training (didn't seem to on his record) or it is the lack of good instruction, training, practice, and coaching.

I don't believe that will ever change. There will always be poor instructors/coaches.

 

[Steve]

Unfortunately, Drop Bear may be correct, based on his experience in WC, at least up to this point. In my training, really applying angling was not taught for a long time. Oh sure we did side-stepping and angling in some drills and so on. But I don't think any of that would have made sense to me with only a month or two in.

One thing about traditional martial arts training is that it's a long slow process. Maybe too slow. Ironically, it was another art, Escrima, that really helped me make my WC work for me. Funny that. The Escrima I trained had a lot of boxing influence. Seeing the same angling principles used in another way in another art made me more aware of what I should have been doing all along in WC.

I apologize for getting on my training model schtick, but don't you think this points to a deficiency in the WAY your WC was being taught? Once again, it's not the techniques or the style, it's how it's taught that really, really matters.

If there are WC'ers who do not do well under pressure, it is VERY likely to be the manner in which they train their techniques. Or said another way, if it takes an exceptional person years to develop even a modest proficiency with the techniques, you're doing something wrong. While it may be that the techniques are inherently flawed, it's much more likely you are just being taught poorly.

This isn't just WC. It's anything.

 

[drop bear]

You are correct in that there are some who just move straight forward. Many of us angle with proper footwork.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is just plain Wrong. This statement shows you don't know or understand what the center is. There may be some individuals who do as you state but then they are not doing the wing chun I know.
We strike to the center (core) of the individual not their centerline. We angle and strike down our centerline into their core. If you are fighting using some of the drills designed to teach the lines, to control the line with forward pressure and to strike into the opponent as in Sil Lum Tao as a beginner then you are correct. And you will get destroyed in a fight. Those drills are not for fighting but to learn to feel, control, pressure, maintain.

A month or so.
And you know & understand the Wing Chun system.
Sorry but your remarks state you don't have but a cursory knowledge and very weak grasp or understanding of which you opine.

Then i guess it is a mystery then why chun collapses under pressure. Probably just bad luck or something.

 

[Danny T]

Then i guess it is a mystery then why chun collapses under pressure. Probably just bad luck or something.

No it just show the flaws in how that person trained and practiced.

 

[drop bear]

No it just show the flaws in how that person trained and practiced.

well yeah pretty much. And if you find chun that does well. They move in and out and take advantage of angles.

And why i left chun because i was punching holes in the instructor.

 

[Kwan Sau]

And why i left chun because i was punching holes in the instructor.

So now, after a month or so of WC...you come on to a WC forum and make broad statements about all of "us"; that do not include yourself...on how all of "us" don't / can't angle, and simply stand there in the "center" (because you say that is what we are supposed to do) and get pummeled. And this is because you have the ability to punch holes in your former WC instructor?

 

[ShortBridge]

Sample size of 1.

 

[Mephisto]

I apologize for getting on my training model schtick, but don't you think this points to a deficiency in the WAY your WC was being taught? Once again, it's not the techniques or the style, it's how it's taught that really, really matters.

If there are WC'ers who do not do well under pressure, it is VERY likely to be the manner in which they train their techniques. Or said another way, if it takes an exceptional person years to develop even a modest proficiency with the techniques, you're doing something wrong. While it may be that the techniques are inherently flawed, it's much more likely you are just being taught poorly.

This isn't just WC. It's anything.

I think you're 100% correct. Often the problems with a system lie in the method the system is trained and it's not necessarily the system that is flawed. However, that directs me back to my "on average some systems are better" soapbox, due to the notion that most schools within a system train in the same manner. The reason boxing and BJJ are effective is the sparring, rolling, and regular training with a resisting opponent, any system that trained this way has the potential to be good. However, if the majority of schools within a system don't train this way than the common training method for that system is not effective. So it may not be that the style is bad but the training method is and thus on average the martial arts system is bad by proxy. Again we're talking bad or ineffective with respect to fighting and self defense ability. I realize some people don't train for that and thus don't care.

 

[drop bear]

So now, after a month or so of WC...you come on to a WC forum and make broad statements about all of "us"; that do not include yourself...on how all of "us" don't / can't angle, and simply stand there in the "center" (because you say that is what we are supposed to do) and get pummeled. And this is because you have the ability to punch holes in your former WC instructor?

Don't get sooky. There are going to be reasons chun works reasons it doesn't and people will have individual ideas on what that is from their personal experience.

feel free to show good chun angling.

 

[drop bear]

I think you're 100% correct. Often the problems with a system lie in the method the system is trained and it's not necessarily the system that is flawed. However, that directs me back to my "on average some systems are better" soapbox, due to the notion that most schools within a system train in the same manner. The reason boxing and BJJ are effective is the sparring, rolling, and regular training with a resisting opponent, any system that trained this way has the potential to be good. However, if the majority of schools within a system don't train this way than the common training method for that system is not effective. So it may not be that the style is bad but the training method is and thus on average the martial arts system is bad by proxy. Again we're talking bad or ineffective with respect to fighting and self defense ability. I realize some people don't train for that and thus don't care.

There is also a paper scissors rock factor. If you approach a fight with one method it will work well against some people but not so well against others. This is the same with body types and physical attributes.

As a quick example. If i have more reach than you but am trying to constantly in fight. I am shooting myself in the foot.

 

[KPM]

I agree, boxing is not a complete self defense system. It's a good base for someone who is into martial arts as a lifelong pursuit. I also currently train and teach FMA, .

That's where Panantukan comes in my friend!!!! ;-)

 

[Kwan Sau]

Don't get sooky.

Sooky? haha... had to look that one up. Apparently it is an Aussie term. Thanks for educating me on that. For the record, has nothing to do with 'sooky'...just pointing out your choice of words on this is poor.

There are going to be reasons chun works reasons it doesn't and people will have individual ideas on what that is from their personal experience.

I agree with you on this. But I wouldn't come on here and claim to speak for all WC as you have done.

feel free to show good chun angling.

I can't...it seems you've condemned my feet to train tracks in an earlier post; and I can't reach my camera.
Besides, I'm a WC guy...and you've said WC doesn't angle...and that none of us can do it; so that's that.

Enjoy your journey friend. Peace.