Mixing WC and other styles?

[vankuen]

Can't really say much else since it's all already been said. Obviously my take is that there's nothing wrong with blending. In fact someone already gave my exact focus: Muay thai for most standup (though it probably resembles Sanshou because I like to do side kicks and throws too), Wing Chun for it's given range, and BJJ/MMA for ground work.

All I have to say is, sometimes you never know what you're missing out on till you try it. You might be good at your given style, but then find that you perform better in another. My philosophy is always be pragmatic--it's all about the results.

 

[CuongNhuka]

My philosophy is always be pragmatic

Your description is not pragmatic.

 

[graychuan]

One thing you guys may find interesting is that in the Woo Fai Ching System, western Boxing is actually a part of the curriculum in the system. My Sifu boxed for 22 years and has a professional record. He requires basic boxing at the end of the Chum Kil Level in this system.
His background in boxing gives him phenomenal hand speed and when you couple that with removal of excess movement and the 'streamlined' mentality of Wing Chun you have a pretty vicious combination. I have actually seen him spar and use WC to engage and take control but after the Chun does the trick he will finish them of with a vicious flurry of boxing. This I think is one example of the mix.

On the other hand, I think his Wing Chun has benefited from the hand speed of his boxing because the hand speed can manifest itself when he is doing just WC. So this could be an example of an artist benefiting from two arts but not actually deviating from certain tenets like structure and all that.
Now that I think of this, maybe we could talk about how a WC structure could benefit/not and manifest/not in Boxing? Subject for another thread?

 

[vankuen]

Your description is not pragmatic.

Other than saying "it's all about the results".

Do you know the english definition of pragmatic? I means being more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles. My take on fighting is being concerned with the results. Hopefully that helps you understand.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Hopefully that helps you understand.

No.

Being pragmatic means you will take bits of this and bits of that, put it with what you already have to make it better. Not a using "X" in situation "X1", and "Y" in situation "Y1".

 

[dungeonworks]

Definitions of pragmatic on the Web:


[SIZE=-1]matter-of-fact: concerned with practical matters; "a matter-of-fact (or pragmatic) approach to the problem"; "a matter-of-fact account of the trip"
of or concerning the theory of pragmatism
pragmatic sanction: an imperial decree that becomes part of the fundamental law of the land
hardheaded: guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory; "a hardheaded appraisal of our position"; "a hard-nosed labor leader"; "completely practical in his approach to business"; "not ideology but pragmatic politics"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Pragmatism is a school of epistemology that originated with Charles Sanders Peirce (who first stated the pragmatic maxim) and came to fruition in the early twentieth-century philosophies of William James and John Dewey. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic[/SIZE]

 

[vankuen]

What is it with wing chun forums?! It doesn't matter what site, wing chun threads always have some stupid keyboard warriors trying to look smart online or trying to correct someone or bring someone else down with their "superior knowledge". Word of advice: don't try to run a mental marathon with someone if you're only a sprinter.

Now, I can't believe I'm about to have to teach grown men the definition of a word they should have learned in middle school...you should NOT have to be looking around the "web" either to know the definition of such a word. However, so that you keyboard intellects have something to look at, I'll retain a source for you as well.

First...wikipedia is not a valid source as colleges will not allow it to be used as a source for any paper. That site was meant to be a source of all knowledge--a mecca of human intellect; but mostly it's just people like those on these forums that spout off something they've heard in an effort to look intelligent. Referencing the second response, the definitions that were listed from the other sites are used for a different context of the word, as there are many variations to its definition.

PRAGMATIC in this context means being concerned with results...period. I'm now going to connect the dots for you, so pay attention.

Pragmatic: (this is the pertinant definition) "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Practical: "consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule" or "mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure".

Source (don't worry it's a link so you don't have to look at anything like a real book): http://dictionary.reference.com/

...

Simply put: In practicing a style or technique or theory of any martial art, the practicioner needs to be mindful of the results. Meaning that if you practice a particular movement or technique or theory, it needs to be practical enough to actually work in a combat environment. How will you know if it's practical? By consistent pressure testing to benchmark your training results.

In general, most of the folks that I've met that only practice one style, either don't pressure test, or they only do so against their own stylists. This does not create an effective fighter in my opinion because the exposure is limited. Cross trainers allow for a broader exposure to the elements that are out there, thereby improving their skills (assuming they are training properly) and their chances at successfully defending themselves or overcoming their opponent.

 

[dungeonworks]

What is it with wing chun forums?! It doesn't matter what site, wing chun threads always have some stupid keyboard warriors trying to look smart online or trying to correct someone or bring someone else down with their "superior knowledge". Word of advice: don't try to run a mental marathon with someone if you're only a sprinter.

Now, I can't believe I'm about to have to teach grown men the definition of a word they should have learned in middle school...you should NOT have to be looking around the "web" either to know the definition of such a word. However, so that you keyboard intellects have something to look at, I'll retain a source for you as well.

First...wikipedia is not a valid source as colleges will not allow it to be used as a source for any paper. That site was meant to be a source of all knowledge--a mecca of human intellect; but mostly it's just people like those on these forums that spout off something they've heard in an effort to look intelligent. Referencing the second response, the definitions that were listed from the other sites are used for a different context of the word, as there are many variations to its definition.

PRAGMATIC in this context means being concerned with results...period. I'm now going to connect the dots for you, so pay attention.

Pragmatic: (this is the pertinant definition) "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Practical: "consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule" or "mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure".

Source (don't worry it's a link so you don't have to look at anything like a real book): http://dictionary.reference.com/

...

Simply put: In practicing a style or technique or theory of any martial art, the practicioner needs to be mindful of the results. Meaning that if you practice a particular movement or technique or theory, it needs to be practical enough to actually work in a combat environment. How will you know if it's practical? By consistent pressure testing to benchmark your training results.

In general, most of the folks that I've met that only practice one style, either don't pressure test, or they only do so against their own stylists. This does not create an effective fighter in my opinion because the exposure is limited. Cross trainers allow for a broader exposure to the elements that are out there, thereby improving their skills (assuming they are training properly) and their chances at successfully defending themselves or overcoming their opponent.

Wow Vankuen, if this is how you treat people that agree with your point of view/opinion (please see red highlighted section of your quote...and the point I was supporting by posting the definition), I think it would be even funnier how you would react to those in opposition!

Also, by the manner in which you responded, I believe you answered your own question "What is it with these Wing Chun forums?". Re-read your last post and look in the mirror. People like yourself take a general discussion a little too seriously...and if you are so smart as to "teach grown men", wouldn't you be smarter to just avoid Wing Chun forums rather than gripe about them if you are so bothered by them???

Like I said, I was attempting to support your point in the discussion. The first definition from my quote:[SIZE=-1]matter-of-fact: concerned with practical matters; "a matter-of-fact (or pragmatic) approach to the problem"; "a matter-of-fact account of the trip" [/SIZE]

You also referred to us (Mainly myself and CuongNhuka I am gathering from your post) things such as "keyboard warriors" and some mumbo jumbo about sprinting metal marathons and teaching grown men things they should have already learned. I won't even waste time responding to that "keyboard warrior" nonsense since your initial responce was trying to degrade and insult which further makes you look like an A$$.

 

[vankuen]

You also referred to us (Mainly myself and CuongNhuka I am gathering from your post)

Actually the only part referenced to you was the portion where I stated

Referencing the second response, the definitions that were listed from the other sites are used for a different context of the word, as there are many variations to its definition.

Which isn't a disagreement at all is it?

And you're wrong about one thing, my response wasn't meant to degrade or insult, it's intention was to end the debate with facts, my tone was a byproduct of my weariness at the crap that's argued in wing chun forums across the e-land.

But your candor is dully noted.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Pragmatic: (this is the pertinant definition) "Of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Practical: "consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule" or "mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure".

Source (don't worry it's a link so you don't have to look at anything like a real book): http://dictionary.reference.com/

What is so 'practicle' about switching from one style to a completely differnit style mid-fight? That's all I'm saying.

If you want to argue with an 'e-warrior', go for it. I'll find one for you to argue with, and leave you two alone. Besides, there's a differnce between arguing, and discussing/debating. I'm here to discuss/debate. Which means I want to sit down with someone and rationally converse with differning oppions. Arguing is what 8 year olds do.
So, would you like to discuss/debate, or would you argue?

 

[vankuen]

What is so 'practicle' about switching from one style to a completely differnit style mid-fight? That's all I'm saying.

Hmm...looked to me like you were correcting my use of the word pragmatic, since that's what you focused on...twice.

If you want to argue with an 'e-warrior', go for it. I'll find one for you to argue with, and leave you two alone. Besides, there's a differnce between arguing, and discussing/debating. I'm here to discuss/debate. Which means I want to sit down with someone and rationally converse with differning oppions. Arguing is what 8 year olds do. So, would you like to discuss/debate, or would you argue?

That really depends on whether or not you want to continue to debate on the definition of a word or not, hopefully with you not debating it incorrectly next time.

I don't come onto forums to quibble about nonsense, and so it upsets me when someone tries to correct me--incorrectly I might add--after I've come to this forum to escape that very same nonsense.

Now if you would like to debate or argue (which in the greek sense is simply the search for truth) sure, I love intellectual conversation.

To answer your question, cross training allows for a larger scope of techniques or tools or theories for a fighter to use. For example, if you're trying to fight someone using wing chun, and it's not working...you could try to level the playing field by taking things to the ground wherein another system like jiu jitsu might play a better role. Or if you're talking about stand-up arts only; if you're trying to use wing chun and it's not working, than you could switch to boxing and it might work better.

Sometimes the answer lies outside the box. It's all about results, and if using a more proper tool provides better results--I'd say use that tool.

 

[CuongNhuka]

That really depends on whether or not you want to continue to debate on the definition of a word or not, hopefully with you not debating it incorrectly next time.

OK, Mr. Omniscient. You win.

 

[dungeonworks]

Hmm...looked to me like you were correcting my use of the word pragmatic, since that's what you focused on...twice.



That really depends on whether or not you want to continue to debate on the definition of a word or not, hopefully with you not debating it incorrectly next time.

I don't come onto forums to quibble about nonsense, and so it upsets me when someone tries to correct me--incorrectly I might add--after I've come to this forum to escape that very same nonsense.

Now if you would like to debate or argue (which in the greek sense is simply the search for truth) sure, I love intellectual conversation.

To answer your question, cross training allows for a larger scope of techniques or tools or theories for a fighter to use. For example, if you're trying to fight someone using wing chun, and it's not working...you could try to level the playing field by taking things to the ground wherein another system like jiu jitsu might play a better role. Or if you're talking about stand-up arts only; if you're trying to use wing chun and it's not working, than you could switch to boxing and it might work better.

Sometimes the answer lies outside the box. It's all about results, and if using a more proper tool provides better results--I'd say use that tool.

Okay, an olive branch...and something other than grammar to speak of

I still do not yet know enough (not NEARLY enough) Wing Chun to judge how it would work/not work in all ranges as I am still in my first two months of training. However, I would NEVER in a million years discount the fact that I make mistakes when sparring or figthing and could end up on the ground. I learned quite a bit about positioning and escaping to get back to my feet when I was training with a local MMA club. Coming from a kickboxing/karate background, that's where I want to be....on my feet striking. One thing that MMA opened my eyes (very wide I may add) is how freaking fast and strong a wrestler can be with a shot. These guys can shoot the legs and disguise it with good execution...as good as a feinting boxer or an adept TKD kicker IMVHO. Sure, you can move and connect with a strike, but there is also the chance it won't be enough to put him out in time to halt the takedown. This is why I would LOVE to keep some type of grappling in my arsenal and am open and supportive of cross training.

That said, I see a lot to learn and love in Wing Chun. Training Wing Chun has reinvigorated my enthusiasm towards training again as it is a fresh angle on things. I felt the same with Modern Arnis but scheduling conflicts kind of hurt that end for the time being, but as I said, I feel Wing Chun is the style for me now and in the long term and I will just add from there.

 

[brocklee]

Don't mix...no need. WC is about simplicity and efficiency and covers every move necessary for any situation. Well, except for guns and things of that nature. Adding to it only complicates things and means you lack confidence in this tool. Which in that case, go take up MMA because they cover everything with hundreds of moves to choose from

 

[vankuen]

Don't mix...no need. WC is about simplicity and efficiency and covers every move necessary for any situation. Well, except for guns and things of that nature. Adding to it only complicates things and means you lack confidence in this tool. Which in that case, go take up MMA because they cover everything with hundreds of moves to choose from

Every move necessary for any situation...? You've GOT to elaborate on that my friend. How do you figure that a style known as a specialized short range close combat system with no groundwork in it's arsenal has the requirements to cover any fighting situation?

I can see where you might be coming from in wing chun's theories, because everything is based on certain maxims that hold true in general like the shortest distance between two points aspect, or the centerline theory and so forth. But to say that it has EVERY MOVE necessary (aside from your gun thing) is stretching things a bit.

There are very, very few systems that incorporate enough to cover all aspects of fighting--and when they do--you typically will get the same result as a "jack of all trades" because the system probably doesn't cover every aspect of every range of fighting--not in the same way that a specialized system would.

 

[geezer]

Every move necessary for any situation...? You've GOT to elaborate on that my friend. How do you figure that a style known as a specialized short range close combat system with no groundwork in it's arsenal has the requirements to cover any fighting situation?

I can see where you might be coming from in wing chun's theories, because everything is based on certain maxims that hold true in general like the shortest distance between two points aspect, or the centerline theory and so forth. But to say that it has EVERY MOVE necessary (aside from your gun thing) is stretching things a bit.

There are very, very few systems that incorporate enough to cover all aspects of fighting--and when they do--you typically will get the same result as a "jack of all trades" because the system probably doesn't cover every aspect of every range of fighting--not in the same way that a specialized system would.

Vankuen, I've been involved in WC/WT since '79 and I believe you are absolutely correct. Wing Chun/Chun is superb in its range, and a lot of it's theory is universal--because, like all good combat arts, it's based on physics. But it also has limitations. Brocklee, if you don't see this, either you have a very broad concept of what WC is, or a very narrow mind!

 

[vankuen]

Well...perception is reality; and perceptions are often molded from out personal experiences. So maybe Brocklee hasn't had any situation where his wing chun didn't work.

I was genuinely interested in hearing the WHY behind the statement and perhaps some elaboration as to the logic behind it. Like I said--my thoughts are that the theories are universal and the techniques for the given range are effective, but from a mechanical standpoint, it's not all encompassing [to me].

 

[brocklee]

You both have very valid view points and I'd believe that I am narrow minded. Touching on every aspect like vankuen is requesting isn't going to be possible because you never know what to expect. You're correct though, WC does have a very short range to it. Should you have a problem with long range combat, working on closing the gap will aid this. If not, just wait for him to get within range and then do your thing. There was a post about wrestlers being able to shoot really well with lots of power. I believe they change their mind when concrete or tile is involved. I'm sure there's someone out there that would do it, you just have to handle that the best that you can. Keep in mind, stating that WC has a move to cover everything doesn't mean that you can win or beat out every situation. That comes down to the attributes of both fighters and who has the most want or drive.

As far as not having ground work, that is very incorrect. Every move you can do on your feet can be used on your side or on even on your back. Even a simple punch can be used while on our back because of the form we use while others are used to needing the space to throw their elbow behind them before they throw out their punch. Also, you'd be better on your feet, so utilizing anti-grappling would probably be the best bet.

As far as my success with WC...it's due to me getting my butt kicked so bad when I was 16 that I decided I wasn't going to let it happen again. I love to fight and that's why I have WC. The problem with that now a days, is fear causes people to bring guns and shoot the better fighters.

 

[vankuen]

It's not necessarily narrow minded man, it's just your mind. If you didn't fully believe in what you were doing you wouldn't be doing it. I'm just a firm believer in people using some actual logic to back up their claims, including my own. Your elaboration makes sense to me, albeit some parts I'd debate as questionable...

You both have very valid view points and I'd believe that I am narrow minded. Touching on every aspect like vankuen is requesting isn't going to be possible because you never know what to expect. You're correct though, WC does have a very short range to it. Should you have a problem with long range combat, working on closing the gap will aid this. If not, just wait for him to get within range and then do your thing.

I agree! Why worry about fighting from a distance when the guy can only hit you when he's close? It was the same mindset I took as well in wing chun. However--keep in mind that people have different ranges to their arms, and thus your opponent's range might be different than your range. That can sometimes pose a problem in wing chun because you might be able to bridge the forearms...and still not be able to hit his torso. Kinda puts a damper on the whole simultanous attack and defense habits.

That comes down to the attributes of both fighters and who has the most want or drive.

Yep--regardless of style--mental and physical conditioning is king.

As far as not having ground work, that is very incorrect. Every move you can do on your feet can be used on your side or on even on your back. Even a simple punch can be used while on our back because of the form we use while others are used to needing the space to throw their elbow behind them before they throw out their punch. Also, you'd be better on your feet, so utilizing anti-grappling would probably be the best bet.

Ah! The fallacy of the standup arts vs. the grappling arts. When I said groundwork--I'm comparing it to styles that focalize their skills on the ground, which is usually grappling and not laying on the ground with punches and kicks.

The theory of being able to do the same movements on the ground is true, in theory and only to a degree. In application it fails miserably, especially against a ground specialist. You see it all the time in fights of any kind, sport fighting event, etc.

Remember, in any standup art, power comes from the ground through kinetic linkage of the joints. On the ground, the standup fighter no longer has the ability to do this. On the ground, in the bottom position, your punches are for the most part arm punches--though you can obtain some leverage with another part of your back or what have you to help aid in the power but nontheless the punches are lacking the same power they did when you were standing. On the side it's even worse, there your punches are truly just "arm" punches. Now if you're the guy on top, because of gravity, your punches now have double the power. So on the ground--your statement could be true if you're going for a ground and pound and find yourself on the top.

In general, if you're betting on the outcome of a groundfight between a wing chun guy and a judo/jiu-jitsu guy--who are you really going to bet on? Be honest!

 

[brocklee]

Your elaboration makes sense to me, albeit some parts I'd debate as questionable...

I encourage debating and there are many opportunities while posting on a forums to do so...and its almost never ending because there are so many view points and possibilities.

keep in mind that people have different ranges to their arms, and thus your opponent's range might be different than your range. That can sometimes pose a problem in wing chun because you might be able to bridge the forearms...and still not be able to hit his torso. Kinda puts a damper on the whole simultanous attack and defense habits.

People do have different striking ranges but the thing is, you should recognize this from the initial approach and make the appropriate adaptations. Closing the gap means more then just bridging the forearm, this is something we do in training to get used to moving in and forcing a possible collapse. What the goal SHOULD be is to move in to an uncomfortably close range and force the opponent to lose their ability to use their strengths. In this situation, long arms. Another thing that may help is taking the focus off of the torso. I enjoy attacking everything...the hands are a lot of fun. Do a couple strikes to the back of their fists and it will immobilize them fast. They'll be aching for days afterwards too

As for the simultanous attack and defense habits, this is something that is taught to get a practitioner used to multitasking while remaining square. Its just a small portion to the battle and it should be used....but there's a proper time for it. You can take the defensive portion and turn it offensive and now you have a double attack...or vice versa.

In general, if you're betting on the outcome of a groundfight between a wing chun guy and a judo/jiu-jitsu guy--who are you really going to bet on? Be honest!

Bruce Lee vs. the special olympics jiu-jitsu guy? I'd bet on bruce lee

I would have touched on the ground fighting vs WC portion of your response but Im at work right now and it would take me forever!! lol My opinion is ground fighters don't usually go to the ground in a bar, I have with someone before and it was easy to get out of because the guy hurt himself on the way down.

You have great and valid arguments