"No Outside Game," or Another Thread About Hybrid Arts

[Hazardi172]

The point is, in my experience with MA's, especially in this marketing driven age, you can't tell the person who changed things and admitted it from the one who doesn't admit it.

There is such a thing as believing the integrity of the person you learn from. WSL said he taught the system of YM- I believe him. My teacher says he teaches the system of WSL- I believe him.

GL and WKL have both said that they teach modified systems. I believe them.

I have at least watched a "student" of every first gen YM student "do their thing", at least in demo. As such we can never know who does what YM intended. This then carries down to someone like WSL. If all the other first gen YM students do things a little (or sometimes a lot different) but most say "this is what YM taught me" my brain just says I have to apply this "down the lane" and be suspect of anyone who claims the "true" version of whatever as they all end up being different, whether subtle or gross.

I am only speaking for WSL VT. I can't comment on other wing chun.

 

[Juany118]

There is such a thing as believing the integrity of the person you learn from. WSL said he taught the system of YM- I believe him. My teacher says he teaches the system of WSL- I believe him.

GL and WKL have both said that they teach modified systems. I believe them.



I am only speaking for WSL VT. I can't comment on other wing chun.

The point is this in two parts.

1. WSL stated he taught what YM taught him. All of the 1st Gen students of YM say the same and WSL VT according to many around here teaches something fundamemtally different than even YM's own sons. So we need to look at what was also said about YM... that he taught to each student's strengths as a traditional Chinese teacher would. So each will be different in what they teach yet speak truth.

2. So we look at all the various YM systems, including those from WSL, there are differences. Just under WSL, Philipp Bayer is different than David Peterson, both of which are different from Gary Lam and more. Yet all say, to one degree or another, they teach WSL VT. The cycle continues.

It doesn't question integrity, there can be differences...Or we have to say only one student of many speaks truth. This is not believable if one thinks critically because we all bring a bit of ourselves to the Martial Art we study, it only becomes an issue on the degree of divergence which we can not determine for ourselves.

This is why I prefer simply saying the "WC/VT I learned" because all of the systems I have seen 2nd hand and the 2 I have trained, have differences. Thus if the "father" is dead, and thus not here to call out "errors", it's a deconstructive vs a constructive argument. No one here in my opinion can claim "this is what [insertname] taught" if they did not learn from [insertname]. All we can say is that "this is my understanding WC/VT from my teacher", or any art, along with how and when we have used it.

If the above isn't accepted then we would have to say only one person alive has passed on YM WC and he would be a student who never studied under YM. Does that make sense when more than a few who studied directly under YM still live? Because that is how logic works.

So in short, we all know the WC/VT our teacher taught us. That and whether it has served us well is all we can prove. Anything else is a source of deconstruction.

 

[Hazardi172]

First I raised the trapping range issue, hence why I responded. It is a "danger zone" where both the striking game can be continued or the grappling game started. Hence why I mentioned it.

I think that grappling can be initiated from any range that striking can be initiated.

Lap da is relevant here because that can be used in trapping range to start a grappling game if your WC lineage teaches it, or if you previously studied a grappling art. As an example in Gary Lam's concept you will primarily use it to trap and clear the way for striking, however it easily leads into a Judo takedown if you have that background. Hence the relevance in fighting.

The Bong Laap drill is just a drill in WSL VT. It isn't something we use in fighting. I don't know what you mean by "trap and clear the way" or how you would use a training drill to accomplish any goal in fighting

NOTE: to me fighting is just that, fighting...on the street...against a random person as that is my career.

You are a professional street fighter?

Trapping range is thus that range in between. You can strike or start grappling in the same space and so it is the danger zone and you need to be able to adapt and deal with two entirely different games, if your idea is to use it on "the street."

As for my conception of VT, I was only referring to your prior comment about it being a "punching" art. if you see it as more than that disregard the statement.

It is the conception of ranges that I am having trouble understanding. If you aren't standing close enough to someone then you can't hit them. So you move. The idea of standing statically in a place where the opponent can hit or grab me is not something I am familiar with. I don't see what benefit an idea of different ranges brings. I personally do not use it.

 

[Hazardi172]

But is your testing going full on (in a safe sparring fashion) against a Judoka? That is what I mean about "schools", different "schools of thought" in terms of martial arts. So the WC/VT practitioner faces the Judoka or Aikidoka, (my prior experience) or FMA, BJJ or MMA guy etc.

As an example. My brother-in-law is going for 3rd dan in TKD and I give him a big bother just using WC, when I get into the "sweet spot" aka trapping range illustrated in the video. Along the same vein I spar with a BJJ guy I work with. If I didn't have the Judo and Aikido background I do, once I got into that range he can grapple. I would have issues then because it's not as easy as "just dropping back to kicking range" when you get into that space where two opposite strengths combine.

Testing can be anything you think is necessary in order to improve. If you are training properly and with care about the result then testing will be rigorous.

 

[Hazardi172]

On your first point you avoid the students of YM who say they didn't change the system. It is imo arrogant to say that only WSL did not change the system and yet it is different than that of YM's own sons. That is the source of the issue and so when you say "changing the system is changing the system" in some fundamental way we come back to the question"who change the YM system?" and again everything flows from that.

This is NOT to say the various systems don't work. Only that we can't know what YM actually taught because of the variations among his own first gen students. That then cascades through the students of those who studied directly under YM. It is a hopeless argument and to avoid political arguments I prefer the following...

"so and so studied under YM..." or WSL etc. "their WC works ergo unless the fundamental principles are broken it is YM WC" or WSL, because the nature of a personal expression (which any fighting system is) is that we bring a bit of ourselves to the table BUT the principles were taught to us by our teacher.

Only very few people completed the system with Yip Man. Wong Shun Leung was one of these. Many versions of wing chun contain silly misunderstandings or obviously made up things that are pretty easy to spot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you realize that it is a training drill then your previous comment is not comprehensible in terms of the conversation up to this point:



I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?

It gives the distance in the way someone who's familiar with that drill would understand. It's like if I said, "it's the distance you stand to start the Classical form of Lift Up." That forms is no used in fighting, but anyone in NGA will know the distance I mean.

 

[Hazardi172]

The point is this in two parts.

1. WSL stated he taught what YM taught him. All of the 1st Gen students of YM say the same and WSL VT according to many around here teaches something fundamemtally different than even YM's own sons. So we need to look at what was also said about YM... that he taught to each student's strengths as a traditional Chinese teacher would. So each will be different in what they teach yet speak truth.

2. So we look at all the various YM systems, including those from WSL, there are differences. Just under WSL, Philipp Bayer is different than David Peterson, both of which are different from Gary Lam and more. Yet all say, to one degree or another, they teach WSL VT. The cycle continues.

It doesn't question integrity, there can be differences...Or we have to say only one student of many speaks truth. This is not believable if one thinks critically because we all bring a bit of ourselves to the Martial Art we study, it only becomes an issue on the degree of divergence which we can not determine for ourselves.

This is why I prefer simply saying the "WC/VT I learned" because all of the systems I have seen 2nd hand and the 2 I have trained, have differences. Thus if the "father" is dead, and thus not here to call out "errors", it's a deconstructive vs a constructive argument. No one here in my opinion can claim "this is what [insertname] taught" if they did not learn from [insertname]. All we can say is that "this is my understanding WC/VT from my teacher", or any art, along with how and when we have used it.

If the above isn't accepted then we would have to say only one person alive has passed on YM WC and he would be a student who never studied under YM. Does that make sense when more than a few who studied directly under YM still live? Because that is how logic works.

So in short, we all know the WC/VT our teacher taught us. That and whether it has served us well is all we can prove. Anything else is a source of deconstruction.

I'm not really interested in reconstructing history or in looking at systems that do not work. WSL taught YM's VT because he said so. Some of WSL's students obviously teach the same system and when asked about it they confirm this. Some others have obviously changed the system and when asked about it they also confirm (e.g. WKL, Gary Lam). There is no problem here, people are free to teach whatever they want.

Some people do not fully understand the system and often they have changed it due to missing information. Sometimes these people do not acknowledge their lack of experience, any changes they have made, or any bits they have made up. This can be a problem because it is confusing for potential students. There are quite a few of this kind of teacher in WSL VT.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think that grappling can be initiated from any range that striking can be initiated.

Anything outside elbow distance is problematic for takedowns (unless you're including the entry movement, by which measure striking can be effected from a bit more than a long step away). If you're including wrist locks, then I'll agree with that.

It is the conception of ranges that I am having trouble understanding. If you aren't standing close enough to someone then you can't hit them. So you move. The idea of standing statically in a place where the opponent can hit or grab me is not something I am familiar with. I don't see what benefit an idea of different ranges brings. I personally do not use it.

Ranges, like stances, are points of reference. You don't stay in one (usually), but being able to define them for discussion is still useful.

 

[Hazardi172]

It gives the distance in the way someone who's familiar with that drill would understand. It's like if I said, "it's the distance you stand to start the Classical form of Lift Up." That forms is no used in fighting, but anyone in NGA will know the distance I mean.

In fighting we move around and try to hit the opponent. I don't see what is special about the distance between 2 people doing the Laap Sau drill.

 

[Hazardi172]

Anything outside elbow distance is problematic for takedowns (unless you're including the entry movement, by which measure striking can be effected from a bit more than a long step away). If you're including wrist locks, then I'll agree with that.


Ranges, like stances, are points of reference. You don't stay in one (usually), but being able to define them for discussion is still useful.

Ranges are not something I have ever considered in this way in WSL VT. Either I can punch or not. If not then move and punch. Always move, don't stay in one place.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In fighting we move around and try to hit the opponent. I don't see what is special about the distance between 2 people doing the Laap Sau drill.

Nothing. It's a reference point. When a student is taught tehcniques and strategy, they are taught something about distance (whether implicitly or explicitly). Having a way to refer to some ranges is easy shorthand for helping a student (and ourselves) better understand where to move and why. So, I won't hang out at "elbow range" (I think about the same as Juany's "trapping distance"), but it's handy to be able to talk about what the options are for the point in time when I'm there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ranges are not something I have ever considered in this way in WSL VT. Either I can punch or not. If not then move and punch. Always move, don't stay in one place.

If you were teaching a new student, one way of making it easier to understand when a given structure (be it block or strike) is useful, is to reference something they already know. You could use a structure they've already demonstrated competence in ("This is usually used at about the same distance as biu jee.") or you can use a shorthand terminology ("This is usually used at about flipper distance."), or you can use anatomical reference points ("This is usually used at about half an arm's length from your opponent."). It's not not a necessary approach, but it's a useful one in many cases, and can help students get a handle on the appropriate range for a given strike, for instance.

 

[Hazardi172]

If you were teaching a new student, one way of making it easier to understand when a given structure (be it block or strike) is useful, is to reference something they already know. You could use a structure they've already demonstrated competence in ("This is usually used at about the same distance as biu jee.") or you can use a shorthand terminology ("This is usually used at about flipper distance."), or you can use anatomical reference points ("This is usually used at about half an arm's length from your opponent."). It's not not a necessary approach, but it's a useful one in many cases, and can help students get a handle on the appropriate range for a given strike, for instance.

I believe that introducing a "trapping range" as discussed so far on this thread would not be helpful for new students, especially as referenced in terms of direct drill applications. I think that doing the drills at the right time and right order teaches the body fine. The nature of the punch determines how close we need to stand. I am still unsure about the difference between trapping and punching range- it looks like the same thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I believe that introducing a "trapping range" as discussed so far on this thread would not be helpful for new students, especially as referenced in terms of direct drill applications. I think that doing the drills at the right time and right order teaches the body fine. The nature of the punch determines how close we need to stand. I am still unsure about the difference between trapping and punching range- it looks like the same thing.

That's my point. It's not introducing a range. It's simply defining what that range is. As you said, the body learns from the drills. The "trapping range" terminology simply allows folks to reference that range later. Just as you refer to "punching range", which is a useful shorthand for a range that's also not static. I'm not certain of the differences, either, since they've been defined in WC terms. I think trapping range would be the shortest part of punching range.

 

[Hazardi172]

That's my point. It's not introducing a range. It's simply defining what that range is. As you said, the body learns from the drills. The "trapping range" terminology simply allows folks to reference that range later. Just as you refer to "punching range", which is a useful shorthand for a range that's also not static. I'm not certain of the differences, either, since they've been defined in WC terms. I think trapping range would be the shortest part of punching range.

I think Juany and KPM are talking about doing applications of the Laap Sau drill at a particular "trapping range"

Since you are unfamiliar with wing chun (?), I will talk directly to those two, rather than talking to you about your interpretation of what they are trying to say to avoid confusion. No offence, just don't want to get bogged down in endless chat

 

[wingchun100]

I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.

It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"

That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.

It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"

That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.

I've posted several times in this thread, and I certainly contributed nothing related to the OP, Steve.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think Juany and KPM are talking about doing applications of the Laap Sau drill at a particular "trapping range"

Since you are unfamiliar with wing chun (?), I will talk directly to those two, rather than talking to you about your interpretation of what they are trying to say to avoid confusion. No offence, just don't want to get bogged down in endless chat

The discussion of range terminology is not specific to WC - the usage of such terminology is pretty consistent (though which terminology and what ranges is not) across arts.

 

[KPM]

[If you realize that it is a training drill then your previous comment is not comprehensible in terms of the conversation up to this point

---Sorry Guy. I meant that we are all familiar with your viewpoint by now.

I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?

---And I answered about trapping range. It has been explained now more than once.

 

[wckf92]

I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.

It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"

That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.

I'm not so sure Steve. I think it may be a simple matter of "your" WC not having an "outside" game (ie kicking)...which, I note, you did not specify in your OP but added to this post.
You should ask your Sifu to teach you some of WC's 'outside game/kicking' methods...?
Just my .02.....but haven't had much coffee yet this morning.