Non-Wing Chun

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Why did you put a qualifier on the weight class? Featherweights and Lightweights can’t make it to the upper echelons of MMA?

Nah. But from what I've seen since they tend to have less KOs, BJJ alone can get you farther in those weight classes.

 

[Hanzou]

Nah. But from what I've seen since they tend to have less KOs, BJJ alone can get you farther in those weight classes.

That's an interesting theory. Maybe if Gordon Ryan finally enters MMA you'll see a heavyweight with Bjj alone dominating. We'll see.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

"Effectiveness" has a rather wide application. I would say that it doesn't have much fighting effectiveness, but for fitness, coordination, learning Chinese culture, etc. I'm sure it is effective in some areas. However, if you wish to become a professional fighter, WC isn't the most effective style for you to be practicing. Again, I have seen WC practitioners say this as well.

I don't hear anyone here saying they want to become a professional fighter.
Can't speak for everyone, but I'm learning wing tsun for the shear enjoyment of it.

And yes I get exercise, coordination,
flexiblility and a whole host of things from it...and believe it or not, I can fight.
Not as a professional, or as a sport competitor. but then I never set out to do that.

There's quite an extensive continuum stretching between "training that does nothing to make you a better fighter" and "training that prepares you for winning professional MMA fights." It's not a binary choice between one or the other.

My WC training is very limited, but I have found elements which occasionally come in useful for me during MMA sparring. In additional, I've found other elements which I think could be applicable during non-sportive fights. I won't say it's the most effective system I've trained in, but it definitely has the potential to make someone a better fighter if trained correctly. (I have some thoughts about what training it "correctly" for fighting effectiveness means, but I'll save those for another thread.)

Also, having trained and done some light sparring with Yak Sao, I can say that I'm confident he can fight (using his WC) much better than the average untrained person. I won't say that he's on the level of the professional MMA fighters I've sparred with, but he wouldn't claim to be.

To be fair, there are strict Bjj guys who enter MMA and don’t get destroyed, so that isn’t true for all martial arts. When I say “strict” I mean that 90-95% of what they do is Bjj.

In the current era of MMA development, I can't think of anyone competing at a high level in MMA with just BJJ training. Even the fighters who have built their game around winning with jiu-jitsu spend significant time training their striking and wrestling. Partly this is so they know how to neutralize the striking and wrestling of their opponents. Partly this is so they can use the threat of these other skills to create openings for their BJJ.

I have read that the rules are sit up to favor grappling though because the Gracie's no clue how much water that holds tho.

Yeah, that's not really true at all. You could even make a decent case that the current unified rules have a slight bias in favor of strikers. (Probably because this makes for fights which are more exciting for the audience.)

Perhaps it's because most people in MMA do not want to invest the time to completely learn the WC system. Perhaps it is because MMA is comprised of things that can be learned easily, and WC isn't on the list of systems to half-learn, or sort-of "dabble" in.

Trust me, MMA fighters will put in the time necessary to learn any system which works for them in the cage. Much of what high-level fighters do in MMA is not easy or quick to learn by any stretch of the imagination. Bear in mind that a high-level fighter of the caliber that makes it into the UFC has spent many more hours of training than 99.99% of the hobbyist martial artists out there.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah, again, the MMA community only "attacks" WC when WC enters the MMA sphere, such as when lunatics like Shawn Obasi enter the MMA sphere pushing WC and face plant hard

Obasi's biggest downfall wasn't that he came in from a WC background. His biggest problem was that he came in with the arrogance to say (paraphrasing slightly) "I'm a WC Man, I'm only a WC man, I refuse to learn or try anything else for my entry into MMA." In the current MMA world, that would guarantee him a losing record even if he came in as a strong boxer or Muay Thai fighter.

 

[Hanzou]

In the current era of MMA development, I can't think of anyone competing at a high level in MMA with just BJJ training. Even the fighters who have built their game around winning with jiu-jitsu spend significant time training their striking and wrestling. Partly this is so they know how to neutralize the striking and wrestling of their opponents. Partly this is so they can use the threat of these other skills to create openings for their BJJ.

Which is why I said they're using 90-95% Bjj. Take Angela Lee for example, the One FC atom weight champ;

She's pretty much winning all of her fights with Bjj.

Also fighters like McKenzie Dern (9-1) and Ryan Hall (8-1) in UFC pretty much win all of their non-decision fights via submission. Their stand up isn't great, and is pretty much used as a set up for getting their opponent to the ground and subbing them. That's where the 5-10% of something else is coming into play.

Obasi's biggest downfall wasn't that he came in from a WC background. His biggest problem was that he came in with the arrogance to say (paraphrasing slightly) "I'm a WC Man, I'm only a WC man, I refuse to learn or try anything else for my entry into MMA." In the current MMA world, that would guarantee him a losing record even if he came in as a strong boxer or Muay Thai fighter.

Well that, and he attempted to apply WC to every problem in MMA, like using WC principles and applying it to takedown defense instead of simply using proven methods from grappling.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Also fighters like McKenzie Dern (9-1) and Ryan Hall (8-1) in UFC pretty much win all of their non-decision fights via submission. Their stand up isn't great, and is pretty much used as a set up for getting their opponent to the ground and subbing them. That's where the 5-10% of something else is coming into play.

I'm not sure about Dern, but Ryan Hall's striking is only "not great" compared to really high level professional striking specialists. He's put a lot of hours into it and trained with high level strikers. It's the fact that he actually can be dangerous with his strikes which gives him the ability to use them as set ups for his grappling. If he was just half-assing his striking training then it wouldn't work nearly as well to set up his BJJ.

Well that, and he attempted to apply WC to every problem in MMA, like using WC principles and applying it to takedown defense instead of simply using proven methods from grappling.

Exactly. That's the natural consequence of his arrogance in refusing to learn anything beyond what he already knew. (It also probably didn't help that he seemed to have some emotional instability issues, at least in the footage I saw of him.)

 

[Hanzou]

I'm not sure about Dern, but Ryan Hall's striking is only "not great" compared to really high level professional striking specialists. He's put a lot of hours into it and trained with high level strikers. It's the fact that he actually can be dangerous with his strikes which gives him the ability to use them as set ups for his grappling. If he was just half-assing his striking training then it wouldn't work nearly as well to set up his BJJ.

Where would you put his striking level at though? I don't see a scenario where he wins fights with only his striking without his opponent being extremely concerned about his ground game. That forces his opponents into awkward situations, like his decision victory against Gray Maynard. Maynard completely refused to engage in close quarter fighting despite his immense wrestling background, so he stayed at range where Hall just peppered him with kicks.

Angela Lee and McKenzie Dern are even more Bjj-centric. I can't think of a single fight that Lee has won where she didn't submit someone using a Bjj sub. Check out Lee's highlight vid I posted, I think you'll really enjoy it.

Exactly. That's the natural consequence of his arrogance in refusing to learn anything beyond what he already knew. (It also probably didn't help that he seemed to have some emotional instability issues, at least in the footage I saw of him.)

I agree. Dude was a complete basket case, but you know darn well you got a good laugh out of it.

 

[Steve]

Steve, in the thread that Hanzou started in the (not) Wing Chun forum looking for validation of MMA superiority (his words) over anything else you posted that training in TMA was the same as doing nothing at all in terms of fight efficacy and that it prepared you less than working out in a gym. You closed with:

So, your views on all of us (TKD, Wing Chun, Tai Chi, everything in one bucket) are clear and there's no point in conversation. I didn't post in the other thread, because I'm not going to go into the MMA forum to argue for Wing Chun. I don't go anywhere to argue for Wing Chun. The question is what motivates you guys to come into the Wing Chun forum to undermine what we do? What would it take to get you to stop?



I know for a fact that no training does not equal the training that I've been through and that I share with people who seek it out with me. I know for a fact that Parkour does not equally prepare you for a fight as the training I've done. It doesn't matter to me that you feel differently, but sheesh, if that is the starting point of our conversation it is also the ending point.

Just have a few minutes to post and I'd like to address just a couple of misunderstandings in the post above. I did not say training wing Chun or any other sport would yield no results. What I actually said is that it would take years... Probably at least 3 to 5 before we might see appreciable, observable differences between a person who trains without application and someone who doesn't train at all. I said that after a year I would not expect to see any real difference.

The main point, though, is that I shared my hypothesis and said that I would be interested in finding out whether I'm right or not. I did not say that I was right or wrong. Rather, I shared my belief and a general interest in finding out whether I'm right or wrong. That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's an important one to me.

Also, just to clarify, my belief is that, if applied regularly, two things will happen. First, the skills will improve for individuals much faster and more reliably. Second, that the style will remain calibrated to application, helping to avoid any shenanigans such as what we see when folks shoe horn things they don't understand into their style.

If you don't apply the skills outside of training, I think you're doing things the hard way. However, there are other reasons to train, so if fighting skill isn't your primary motivation to train, I say have fun.

 

[Steve]

I don't blame you for not talking about you, I can't think of anything to say, I even pointed out things that you aren't, as opposed to are... I can see why you do what you do... Dragging down others so you can feel better about yourself... It's kinda invigorating.




You should be familiar with those qualities I've adopted your approach.

I don't think you should post when you've been drinking. You get a little punchy.

 

[jobo]

Just have a few minutes to post and I'd like to address just a couple of misunderstandings in the post above. I did not say training wing Chun or any other sport would yield no results. What I actually said is that it would take years... Probably at least 3 to 5 before we might see appreciable, observable differences between a person who trains without application and someone who doesn't train at all. I said that after a year I would not expect to see any real difference.

The main point, though, is that I shared my hypothesis and said that I would be interested in finding out whether I'm right or not. I did not say that I was right or wrong. Rather, I shared my belief and a general interest in finding out whether I'm right or wrong. That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's an important one to me.

Also, just to clarify, my belief is that, if applied regularly, two things will happen. First, the skills will improve for individuals much faster and more reliably. Second, that the style will remain calibrated to application, helping to avoid any shenanigans such as what we see when folks shoe horn things they don't understand into their style.

If you don't apply the skills outside of training, I think you're doing things the hard way. However, there are other reasons to train, so if fighting skill isn't your primary motivation to train, I say have fun.

thats not my exsperiance steve, really the reverse is true , for those comming ibto ma for the first time and those coming in to sport for athe first time in a long tine, they make enourmas gains in the first 12 months, then the law of demintioning returns applies and the rate of progrss slows considerably to no n at all, after 3/ 4 years

 

[ShortBridge]

Just have a few minutes to post and I'd like to address just a couple of misunderstandings in the post above. I did not say training wing Chun or any other sport would yield no results. What I actually said is that it would take years... Probably at least 3 to 5 before we might see appreciable, observable differences between a person who trains without application and someone who doesn't train at all. I said that after a year I would not expect to see any real difference.

The main point, though, is that I shared my hypothesis and said that I would be interested in finding out whether I'm right or not. I did not say that I was right or wrong. Rather, I shared my belief and a general interest in finding out whether I'm right or wrong. That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's an important one to me.

Also, just to clarify, my belief is that, if applied regularly, two things will happen. First, the skills will improve for individuals much faster and more reliably. Second, that the style will remain calibrated to application, helping to avoid any shenanigans such as what we see when folks shoe horn things they don't understand into their style.

If you don't apply the skills outside of training, I think you're doing things the hard way. However, there are other reasons to train, so if fighting skill isn't your primary motivation to train, I say have fun.

There is an assumption that how people train, whether they focus on application, for example, and/or how much conditioning they do, can be known based on which style they practice. Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason, but I think that this assumption is the root of a lot of the antipathy in our collective unproductive arguments. In my experience it is not a reliable assumption.

What is considered "traditional" is another baseline standard that if we were going to have productive discussions intra-style, we would need to resolve. I don't personally believe that it is traditional in southern kung fu styles to wear silk uniforms and primarily practice forms and choreographed fight sequences, but some people do and some people who don't train in a TMA system believe that is what happens inside of all TMA systems and schools. It certainly happens in some, but I assure you, it is not how everyone trains.

I don't believe that tournament chi sao is a traditional way to train in Wing Chun, but some people do. I have no problem with those people, but it's got nothing to do with me.

MMA deserves respect. I really admire the way that people train in BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, MMA gyms. I love the sports of boxing and Muay Thai and admire grappling sports, like Judo, Jiu Jitsu, and various forms of wrestling, though I haven't spent significant time in any of them, the way that I have in boxing. But, my wife joined a boxing gym a few years back and loves it. It's gotten her in shape, it's therapeutic, it's given her some confidence, and it wouldn't not work for self defense, she knows how to throw a punch and maintain her balance now, maybe even some footwork. But, as much as I love her, she's not better prepared for self defense than my students. She's just not. My students go through more application training, get hit more, face non-compliant, unconstrained by rules force than she ever will. The idea that your legitimacy or lack thereof is about what style or system you affiliate with is flawed.

I get that there are a lot of examples of people walking into MMA gyms with black belts that they got usually as kids, who can't handle 20 seconds in a ring with an intermediate MMA student. We get them too. I've trained cops and air marshals, and ex military people with and without TMA training that they felt left them short and if you own an MMA gym, you have too. My students and I to varying degrees have all been challenged and tested in training and in the real world with varying degrees of success that we learn from and bring back into our training. We don't talk about it much, we don't post it on YouTube and we don't make sweeping claims about our superiority, but I wish the every time that I logged into MartialTalk, which honestly I have diminishing reasons to do, our legitimacy wasn't being dismissed by people who watched the Yip Man movies or read the Tao of JKD.

The challenge I give to everyone who inquires with me about training is to think hard about what it is that they are worried about happening that they are training for and then find what will help them the most to prepare for that. The answer isn't always Wing Chun and it isn't always to train with me, but sometimes it is.

The arrogance of the viewpoint that it is always MMA or BJJ or boxing is a fundamental difference that is just a barrier to any reasonable conversation. The original point of this thread was "if you believe the Wing Chun is BS and a waste of time, unless it's just for fun or fitness or some other non-application purpose, then why do you reply to Wing Chun threads?" I don't mean this particular thread and neither did the OP, he meant every single question or thought or opinion or discussion in the Wing Chun forum.

There are only a few possible answers:

• It's just straight up trolling
• You believe that you are absolutely right and everyone in this forum, even though you've never trained with them is wrong or lying and you owe it to people to inform them of the right way...like an evangelical of some sort. This appears to be specifically against the rules at MartialTalk, but it is not generally enforced in the Wing Chun forums for some reason, which is why MartialTalk is really not a great place for people who want to connect with other Wing Chun people. Too much noise.
  
• You're posting uninformed throw away remarks off the top of your head without realizing that you're being entirely dismissive of the credibility of people who you really don't know much about.

If anyone wants to own any of those, then great. We definitely have trolls and though trolls never own being trolls, we have had some say things like "because I want to" and "because I have a right to say whatever I want", which really equates to trolling. I'm sure there are also true believers. And I give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that some people are just not self aware enough to understand what ****s they are being.

It is what it is and we're not going to change it with this discussion or any other. Even if we all came to some agreement right now, someone is going to join tomorrow and start this all over again. What is isn't in a "Friendly Martial Arts Community" unless you are from one of the UFC approved approaches to training.

 

[Hanzou]

thats not my exsperiance steve, really the reverse is true , for those comming ibto ma for the first time and those coming in to sport for athe first time in a long tine, they make enourmas gains in the first 12 months, then the law of demintioning returns applies and the rate of progrss slows considerably to no n at all, after 3/ 4 years

I think what Steve is getting at (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the styles based more on application (i.e. more full contact sparring) tend to have a quicker rate of student effectiveness than styles who tend to practice a more passive approach and are based more on theory. For example, a boxer in a ring everyday fighting opponents is going to be a better fighter in 6 months than someone practicing forms in a traditional style in the same time frame. That's simply reality, because it's experience versus non experience.

You can even witness this within the exact same style with different training philosophies in place. For example, there was a push within Bjj about a decade ago to not allow white belts to roll (spar) with one another until blue belt. That practice was quickly abandoned when those fresh blue belts with no fighting experience were getting absolutely smashed by blue belts from other schools who allowed their white belts to spar with each other.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Where would you put his striking level at though? I don't see a scenario where he wins fights with only his striking without his opponent being extremely concerned about his ground game. That forces his opponents into awkward situations, like his decision victory against Gray Maynard. Maynard completely refused to engage in close quarter fighting despite his immense wrestling background, so he stayed at range where Hall just peppered him with kicks.

You could say the same thing about those MMA fighters who win all their fights through striking and knockouts. The reason they're able to do so is that they've developed a strong enough grappling game that their opponents don't feel they can easily and safely take them down. The days of anyone being able to compete at a high level in MMA without having solid skills in both striking and grappling are over - even if what you see from a given fighter in the cage seems to be mostly just one or the other. If someone comes in only competent in one domain, their opponents will force them into the areas where they are weak.

Angela Lee and McKenzie Dern are even more Bjj-centric. I can't think of a single fight that Lee has won where she didn't submit someone using a Bjj sub. Check out Lee's highlight vid I posted, I think you'll really enjoy it.

I love watching Lee fight. Her grappling flow is amazing. Same with Dern.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There's quite an extensive continuum stretching between "training that does nothing to make you a better fighter" and "training that prepares you for winning professional MMA fights." It's not a binary choice between one or the other.

My WC training is very limited, but I have found elements which occasionally come in useful for me during MMA sparring. In additional, I've found other elements which I think could be applicable during non-sportive fights. I won't say it's the most effective system I've trained in, but it definitely has the potential to make someone a better fighter if trained correctly. (I have some thoughts about what training it "correctly" for fighting effectiveness means, but I'll save those for another thread.)

Also, having trained and done some light sparring with Yak Sao, I can say that I'm confident he can fight (using his WC) much better than the average untrained person. I won't say that he's on the level of the professional MMA fighters I've sparred with, but he wouldn't claim to be.


In the current era of MMA development, I can't think of anyone competing at a high level in MMA with just BJJ training. Even the fighters who have built their game around winning with jiu-jitsu spend significant time training their striking and wrestling. Partly this is so they know how to neutralize the striking and wrestling of their opponents. Partly this is so they can use the threat of these other skills to create openings for their BJJ.


Yeah, that's not really true at all. You could even make a decent case that the current unified rules have a slight bias in favor of strikers. (Probably because this makes for fights which are more exciting for the audience.)



Trust me, MMA fighters will put in the time necessary to learn any system which works for them in the cage. Much of what high-level fighters do in MMA is not easy or quick to learn by any stretch of the imagination. Bear in mind that a high-level fighter of the caliber that makes it into the UFC has spent many more hours of training than 99.99% of the hobbyist martial artists out there.

I suspect (but may be wrong) that what he meant was that it takes more hours to get to a similar level of effectiveness. I think that's true of a lot of "traditional" arts. Some may even be capable of producing the same level of fighter "eventually", but some systems (boxing and MT come to mind) seem to have a better record of reliably delivering that competence in shorter time periods for folks who really put a lot of hours in. Some of that may be inherent in the training methods, and some may be because so many systems focus on hobbyists, who have a different set of training needs than folks putting in 30+ hours per week.

This is something I've tried to say in other threads, but I haven't done a good job of it. Many systems have bits that needn't be in there, and aren't necessary for fastest path to competency. But they are part of what make the art interesting and different, so folks keep them (and when they shed them, it's not really that art any more). I think most hobbyists are (or eventually become) aware of this, and accept it as part of the deal. It's especially true for those "-do" arts that take seriously the commitment to delivering more than fighting skills. If you focus entirely on fighting skills (or even more narrowly, on fighting skills for a particular competition format), it makes sense to ditch everything that doesn't feed that purpose.

From my reading and off-line discussions with WC folks, I think WC - like the aiki arts - holds onto some things because it's part of what makes the art what it is. And they're okay with it not being an absolute pursuit of the fastest path to fighting competency.

 

[Hanzou]

You could say the same thing about those MMA fighters who win all their fights through striking and knockouts. The reason they're able to do so is that they've developed a strong enough grappling game that their opponents don't feel they can easily and safely take them down. The days of anyone being able to compete at a high level in MMA without having solid skills in both striking and grappling are over - even if what you see from a given fighter in the cage seems to be mostly just one or the other. If someone comes in only competent in one domain, their opponents will force them into the areas where they are weak.

I can't really say I agree with that. When you listen to the commentary for strikers like Usman, Masvidal, Adesanya, or McGregor, you never hear someone say "Fighter X's gameplan is avoiding the takedown because they don't want to engage on the ground with Fighter Y". I'm definitely not saying that McGregor, Usman, Masvidal, etc. don't have highly developed ground fighting skills, they definitely do. However, it's rather clear that you're dealing with an entirely different level of grappling with the Bjj-based fighters, and the fighters know that.

I love watching Lee fight. Her grappling flow is amazing. Same with Dern.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

thats not my exsperiance steve, really the reverse is true , for those comming ibto ma for the first time and those coming in to sport for athe first time in a long tine, they make enourmas gains in the first 12 months, then the law of demintioning returns applies and the rate of progrss slows considerably to no n at all, after 3/ 4 years

My experience has been a cross between these, within TMA. There's a gain of knowledge and technical skill in the first year - they're able to "move right". But a couple of years later, they start to "move well" and can actually make things work the way they should. For the next few years, this continues, but at a slower rate, which diminishes almost logorithmically.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think what Steve is getting at (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the styles based more on application (i.e. more full contact sparring) tend to have a quicker rate of student effectiveness than styles who tend to practice a more passive approach and are based more on theory. For example, a boxer in a ring everyday fighting opponents is going to be a better fighter in 6 months than someone practicing forms in a traditional style in the same time frame. That's simply reality, because it's experience versus non experience.

You can even witness this within the exact same style with different training philosophies in place. For example, there was a push within Bjj about a decade ago to not allow white belts to roll (spar) with one another until blue belt. That practice was quickly abandoned when those fresh blue belts with no fighting experience were getting absolutely smashed by blue belts from other schools who allowed their white belts to spar with each other.

I'd assert this is training methods, not necessarily the style - though the two correlate strongly in some styles. If a boxer spent their sparring time shadow boxing, they'd likely take a lot longer getting to that proficiency (if they ever did). Similarly, if we compared two WC practitioners, where one focused on forms and the other spent a lot of time sparring, I think it'd be pretty easy to guess which would develop their fighting skills faster.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't really say I agree with that. When you listen to the commentary for strikers like Usman, Masvidal, Adesanya, or McGregor, you never hear someone say "Fighter X's gameplan is avoiding the takedown because they don't want to engage on the ground with Fighter Y". I'm definitely not saying that McGregor, Usman, Masvidal, etc. don't have highly developed ground fighting skills, they definitely do. However, it's rather clear that you're dealing with an entirely different level of grappling with the Bjj-based fighters, and the fighters know that.

I don't think Tony was arguing those strikers had ground games on par with the BJJ-centric fighters. But if McGregor didn't have a competent ground game (and takedown defense), other fighters would have found that weakness pretty early in his pro career and would have used it to minimize his striking.

 

[Steve]

I'd assert this is training methods, not necessarily the style - though the two correlate strongly in some styles. If a boxer spent their sparring time shadow boxing, they'd likely take a lot longer getting to that proficiency (if they ever did). Similarly, if we compared two WC practitioners, where one focused on forms and the other spent a lot of time sparring, I think it'd be pretty easy to guess which would develop their fighting skills faster.

You're getting there. It's about application (and the training culture that promotes it) and not style. I think most martial arts styles are cool as hell. I don't like how some reason, and I think it's dangerous if they confuse martial training with fighting application, more so if they promote this as a "feature" of the style.

Sparring is a good training tool, and essential, I think. But it isn't fighting. It concerns me that you conflate them.

 

[Steve]

I don't think Tony was arguing those strikers had ground games on par with the BJJ-centric fighters. But if McGregor didn't have a competent ground game (and takedown defense), other fighters would have found that weakness pretty early in his pro career and would have used it to minimize his striking.

Chase Hooper is a young fighter. Ufc contract before he was 21. Has had 2 UFC fights now and is 1 and 1. He has terrible striking but is a beast on the mat. Decent wrestling and too tier bjj. I think he's peaked if he doesn't improve his striking. He's done extremely well without great striking, but he just had no chance in his last fight.