Wing Chun applications in MMA or the street

[Nobody Important]

Nah. It's MMA with a Wing Chun base. It seems to work for Alan and his students.

I think Alan is stretching limits trying to fit everything he does as included in WC. A tan sao is not an underhook IMO. Or not all the time, anyway.

Agree, in reality that is what it is. They are trying to pass it off as Wing Chun. Not just Wing Chun but ancient, original Wing Chun with all this force flow, 7 bows, 6 core principles , 13 whatever etc. I don't see the cohesiveness. When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable. Their forms contain the same principles that are expressed in their applications and drills. With Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun their forms do not express the same mechanics as found in their drills & applications. It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
I agree that he is trying to associate everything as WC, it's over-generalized. His right to call it what he wants, it works for them, but too much has been reworked, renamed and modified to call it Wing Chun proper IMO.

 

[Eric_H]

When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable.

Maybe you can tell me how "modified" what I study is, being it doesn't have anything to do with yip man's wing chun. Who exactly is modifying it and from what?

 

[dudewingchun]

I've seen Alan's Wing Chun NHB vids so I have some idea of his approach. I haven't followed the later force flow stuff, as the fifteen or so of Hendrik's 500 thirty minute videos on the subject that I've seen are unconvincing, as are most of his sycophants' or former sycophants' video demonstrations. Could I be wrong? Maybe. Is it worth a trip to the US to find out? No.

At 61 and with about $50,000 of dental work I don't wish to place at risk any time soon, I'm not going to make you a combat video. However, my instructor had 37 pro kickboxing matches back in the 70's and 80's and retired undefeated after a car accident. One of his instructor level students, Nick Ariel, has held a WKA kickboxing title (he might still hold it for all I know). Students from our Sydney and Ulverstone, Tasmania branches have competed successfully in kickboxing, BJJ, and MMA, including females. Just last weekend one of our Tasmanian MMA fighters won a cage fight and a belt. And all this has been accomplished without force flow.

My instructor doesn't have the same internet presence as Alan and Robert. Alan deserves kudos and respect, but he's not the only WC instructor having successes in combat sports. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

I haven't watched hendriks videos apart from a few for a couple of minutes. That NHB stuff is the basics of CSL though. Im talking about Alan and CSL not Hendrik with Yik Kam.

Does your teacher happen to have any videos at all of the fights uploaded? Just curious to watch. Not asking for people to personally make one to please me, just some people talk and talk and talk but prove nothing. Much respect to anyone who will fight in a cage or any sort of tourney.

If people are looking at the CSL fights with the point of view of their lineage.. then ofcourse you wont see your idea of wing chun being applied. I would like to see people's wing chun come out against any of them.

 

[dudewingchun]

Agree, in reality that is what it is. They are trying to pass it off as Wing Chun. Not just Wing Chun but ancient, original Wing Chun with all this force flow, 7 bows, 6 core principles , 13 whatever etc. I don't see the cohesiveness. When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable. Their forms contain the same principles that are expressed in their applications and drills. With Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun their forms do not express the same mechanics as found in their drills & applications. It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
I agree that he is trying to associate everything as WC, it's over-generalized. His right to call it what he wants, it works for them, but too much has been reworked, renamed and modified to call it Wing Chun proper IMO.

I really do not agree with that at all as someone who actually learns from Alan in person. Why do you guys think the 10% of CSL he shows online is the whole system? Everyone who comments on CSL acts like they know everything about it.

 

[Nobody Important]

Maybe you can tell me how "modified" what I study is, being it doesn't have anything to do with yip man's wing chun. Who exactly is modifying it and from what?

This isn't meant as an insult to your lineage, though you may perceive it to be so. I have nothing against HFY, what I have seen of it I like. That being said, nothing in HFY can be substantiated beyond Garrett Gee. Forgive me for being suspicious, but the entire background is extremely suspect. Until HFY can be vetted it will continue to be scrutinized. Can that be accepted as fair?

 

[anerlich]

Can't find a vid off the top of my head but here's and article about the recent match.

Ethan Duniam wins rematch with Jesse Medina at Minotaur 4

 

[Nobody Important]

I really do not agree with that at all as someone who actually learns from Alan in person. Why do you guys think the 10% of CSL he shows online is the whole system? Everyone who comments on CSL acts like they know everything about it.

I'm sure there is more. But association with the likes of Hendrik Santos has its own misgivings. Terms like force flow, 6 Core Principles, 7 Bows etc. are terms created & engineered by Hendrik, they are not terms used in any branch beyond those associated with him. They are not concepts or principles indigenous to Wing Chun. They are recent inventions that have heavily altered the manner in which the art is performed and utilized. I never said this was a bad thing. Mr. Orr has proven that his method has merit. It doesn't mean that it's 100% "Original Wing Chun" when it contradicts the long established traditions of many other branches that go back for generations. Again I see nothing wrong with the method as far as its usefulness. IMO I simply don't view it as 100% Wing Chun, let alone "Original" or "Ancient" in methodology.

 

[anerlich]

Why do you guys think the 10% of CSL he shows online is the whole system? Everyone who comments on CSL acts like they know everything about it.

I don't know everything about CSL WC or what Alan does. I do know about tan saos and underhooks and do not agree with Alan's analysis on the vid implying strong similarities between them. It's not a complete analysis and if he went into it in more detail on the vid or we discussed it I might well end up agreeing with a more complete picture of his ideas.

If a video gets posted it's legitimate for others to give their impressions of what's presented. The video is about MMA as much as it is about CSLWC. If it was ALL WC, there would have been no need for Alan to pursue BJJ and obtain a black belt or train wrestling, etc.

 

[KPM]

It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
.

I think if you saw Robert Chu in action you would get a different impression. Robert doesn't do MMA. But Robert doesn't post videos.

 

[KPM]

Nah. It's MMA with a Wing Chun base. It seems to work for Alan and his students.

.

If you guys recall, I caught all kinds of hell for saying that on the "other" forum a few years back!

 

[Nobody Important]

I think if you saw Robert Chu in action you would get a different impression. Robert doesn't do MMA. But Robert doesn't post videos.

I have, that is why I made the comment that the forms for CSLWC look contradictory to how it is applied. Though I may see some concepts of WC in what Allen Orr does , I don't see the system as a whole when it's applied, just bits & bobs. Perhaps that is my ignorance, but more than likely it's because Mr. Orr has augmented his WC with other material like Boxing & BJJ. I have to agree with Anerlich it's MMA with Wing Chun base. Nothing wrong with that, but to call it 100% WC, would be like saying I practice Tae Kwon Do but apply it like Judo because it is Judo. Just because there may be some overlap in some aspects doesn't mean it's the same thing.

 

[Nobody Important]

If you guys recall, I caught all kinds of hell for saying that on the "other" forum a few years back!

Let it go, let it go.....in my best Elsa voice

 

[Eric_H]

This isn't meant as an insult to your lineage, though you may perceive it to be so. I have nothing against HFY, what I have seen of it I like. That being said, nothing in HFY can be substantiated beyond Garrett Gee. Forgive me for being suspicious, but the entire background is extremely suspect. Until HFY can be vetted it will continue to be scrutinized. Can that be accepted as fair?

That's totally fair.

 

[Eric_H]

If you guys recall, I caught all kinds of hell for saying that on the "other" forum a few years back!

There's a great need for sand picking machines over there. Personally, I think the success Alan and his folks are having is great. It's just not all WC. It's more of their own brand of JKD. Teachers have been making personal versions/variations of their styles for centuries that blend other stuff, it's nothing new, and nothing wrong with it. It's just not "pure" WC and shouldn't be represented as such IMO.

 

[Juany118]

Agree, in reality that is what it is. They are trying to pass it off as Wing Chun. Not just Wing Chun but ancient, original Wing Chun with all this force flow, 7 bows, 6 core principles , 13 whatever etc. I don't see the cohesiveness. When you see modified Wing Chun like that of William Cheng, Andreas Hoffman or Garrett Gee it is immediately recognizable. Their forms contain the same principles that are expressed in their applications and drills. With Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun their forms do not express the same mechanics as found in their drills & applications. It looks like standard Yip Man Wing Chun in solo practice, but like MMA in application (with some loose WC concepts). They try to pass it off as 100% Wing Chun, when in reality it's more like 10% Wing Chun, 30% Boxing, 40% BJJ & 20% misc.
I agree that he is trying to associate everything as WC, it's over-generalized. His right to call it what he wants, it works for them, but too much has been reworked, renamed and modified to call it Wing Chun proper IMO.

Ummm you make a few contradictions here... especially if we return to the "concept" thread.

1. WC is, with your agreement, a conceptual art.
2. WC has multiple Lineages that predate Yip Man and "his" WC
3. The only evidence we have of Yip Man's WC out side of debates of his students are videos of an almost 90 year old man literally on his death bed, suffering the pain of stage 4 cancer.

Thus how can you, with anything resembling proof say who does and who does not teach a modified form and can you even have a modified form of a conceptual art so long as the foundational principles are adhered to?

PS just referring to the "modified" WC comment of specific people. It seems to contradict.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ummm you make a few contradictions here... especially if we return to the "concept" thread.

1. WC is, with your agreement, a conceptual art.
2. WC has multiple Lineages that predate Yip Man and "his" WC
3. The only evidence we have of Yip Man's WC out side of debates of his students are videos of an almost 90 year old man literally on his death bed, suffering the pain of stage 4 cancer.

Thus how can you, with anything resembling proof say who does and who does not teach a modified form and can you even have a modified form of a conceptual art so long as the foundational principles are adhered to?

PS just referring to the "modified" WC comment of specific people. It seems to contradict.

I do not disagree with your number list, but it isn't so cut & dry.

The use of modified, was not meant as an insult. The reference was towards William Cheung's version of WC, which we know is vastly different that that of his classmates. Towards HFY, which is different to verified branches that go back generations. I simply said they weren't vetted, not illegitimate. Chi Sim WC is known to have Hung Gar influence. Again modification, not illegitimate. They certainly are branches of WC as far as I am concerned, but they do have their share of controversy for good reasons.

In the thread on concept this is what I said.

"If the forms of Wing Chun were never created there wouldn't be a reference for the structure and movement of the art, because concept is impressionable, it is molded by the shape it is placed into. Hence, no shape, no litmus, no argument. Simply different interpretations of concept."

In the case of CSLWC, there are forms. Yet how Mr. Orr applies these techniques derived from the forms contradicts the structure and movement as found in their forms. It's as if there are 2 different arts.

When you look at William Cheung, HFY or Chi Sim Wing Chun, their application of the art follows the same actions & principles as found in their form work. The same IMO does not hold true for how CSLWC is applied in the ring, it is modified beyond the codification as dictated by their form work. Nothing wrong with this, but I see it as a contradiction of how it can be called Wing Chun when it is applied in a manner not consistent with the structure defined within the forms. If their forms looked more like those of Andreas Hoffman, I couldn't make the same argument. I hope this clarify's my position.

For an art to be defined loose concept is not enough. There has to be a structural foundation upon which the concept is based, and this structural foundation has to be adhered to. This is because many arts share similar concepts, if they didn't have very specific ways of structure, moving & power generation. No one would be able to tell them apart. Ba Gua would look like Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do would look like Tai Chi. This isn't the case because each of these arts, though sharing many similar concepts, adhere to the framework that defines their arts.

 

[Juany118]

I do not disagree with your number list, but it isn't so cut & dry.

The use of modified, was not meant as an insult. The reference was towards William Cheung's version of WC, which we know is vastly different that that of his classmates. Towards HFY, which is different to verified branches that go back generations. I simply said they weren't vetted, not illegitimate. Chi Sim WC is known to have Hung Gar influence. Again modification, not illegitimate. They certainly are branches of WC as far as I am concerned, but they do have their share of controversy for good reasons.

In the thread on concept this is what I said.

"If the forms of Wing Chun were never created there wouldn't be a reference for the structure and movement of the art, because concept is impressionable, it is molded by the shape it is placed into. Hence, no shape, no litmus, no argument. Simply different interpretations of concept."

In the case of CSLWC, there are forms. Yet how Mr. Orr applies these techniques derived from the forms contradicts the structure and movement as found in their forms. It's as if there are 2 different arts.

When you look at William Cheung, HFY or Chi Sim Wing Chun, their application of the art follows the same actions & principles as found in their form work. The same IMO does not hold true for how CSLWC is applied in the ring, it is modified beyond the codification as dictated by their form work. Nothing wrong with this, but I see it as a contradiction of how it can be called Wing Chun when it is applied in a manner not consistent with the structure defined within the forms. If their forms looked more like those of Andreas Hoffman, I couldn't make the same argument. I hope this clarify's my position.

For an art to be defined loose concept is not enough. There has to be a structural foundation upon which the concept is based, and this structural foundation has to be adhered to. This is because many arts share similar concepts, if they didn't have very specific ways of structure, moving & power generation. No one would be able to tell them apart. Ba Gua would look like Shotokan and Tae Kwon Do would look like Tai Chi. This isn't the case because each of these arts, though sharing many similar concepts, adhere to the framework that defines their arts.

Even "not vetted" is a mess. I am not saying that you are saying anything is illegitimate btw, only that using terms such as modified, vetted etc. go against the statement of a conceptual art. That is a rabbit hole to be avoided.

Now this isn't to say Orr in the MMA videos is teaching pure WC. As I understand it he teaches one of the multitude of WC styles (in his case Chu Sau Lei WC) AND a style of MMA that integrates WC principles and some techniques but the two are different animals. I think this difference is being lost.

 

[Nobody Important]

Even "not vetted" is a mess. I am not saying that you are saying anything is illegitimate btw, only that using terms such as modified, vetted etc. go against the statement of a conceptual art. That is a rabbit hole to be avoided.

Now this isn't to say Orr in the MMA videos is teaching pure WC. As I understand it he teaches one of the multitude of WC styles (in his case Chu Sau Lei WC) AND a style of MMA that integrates WC principles and some techniques but the two are different animals. I think this difference is being lost.

You are correct. But as far as I know, Mr. Chu & Mr. Orr do not make that differentiation. They claim it as simply Wing Chun. As you stated they are two different animals, I simply pointed that out.

As stated previously, I do not think that other branches other than Yip Man are illegitimate. They have a right to the name as much as anyone. However, I do feel that there has to be a consistency in how an art is presented, played & applied. If one of these things swings wildly to the left of the others it throws up a flag to me.

I appreciate the oral traditions & histories of the many WC branches, but when claims of secret transmission, forgotten knowledge, lost lineages etc. pop up, but only go back as far as the individual making the claim, that throws up a flag too.

I know it's tradition to claim an ancestor for any innovations to an art, but thats a bit outdated in this day & age. If you make changes to your art, especially changes that elevate it & people's understanding of it, take credit for your work. Screw the "traditionalists" that look down upon it. Throughout the history of CMA masters borrowed, traded and stole stuff from several arts to either elevate old methods or create new ones.

 

[Juany118]

You are correct. But as far as I know, Mr. Chu & Mr. Orr do not make that differentiation. They claim it as simply Wing Chun. As you stated they are two different animals, I simply pointed that out.

Actually I think, at least Orr, kinda dodges the issue. She he teaches WC he says he teaches WC. When asked if there is WC in the MMA he teaches he says yes. That is different that saying they are the same.

As stated previously, I do not think that other branches other than Yip Man are illegitimate. They have a right to the name as much as anyone. However, I do feel that there has to be a consistency in how an art is presented, played & applied. If one of these things swings wildly to the left of the others it throws up a flag to me.

I appreciate the oral traditions & histories of the many WC branches, but when claims of secret transmission, forgotten knowledge, lost lineages etc. pop up, but only go back as far as the individual making the claim, that throws up a flag too.

I know it's tradition to claim an ancestor for any innovations to an art, but thats a bit outdated in this day & age. If you make changes to your art, especially changes that elevate it & people's understanding of it, take credit for your work. Screw the "traditionalists" that look down upon it. Throughout the history of CMA masters borrowed, traded and stole stuff from several arts to either elevate old methods or create new ones.

I will just comment on the last bit. Even Yip Man made exaggerations of his training to sell his school. "This day in age" has different qualifiers and contexts to different people born in different decades and in different cultures. As such it seems to be better to simply use the "duck" principle. Remember that on the look part a

Looks different than a

But they are both ducks so arguing over plumage just causes "issues" that are best avoided.

 

[Nobody Important]

Actually I think, at least Orr, kinda dodges the issue. She he teaches WC he says he teaches WC. When asked if there is WC in the MMA he teaches he says yes. That is different that saying they are the same.



I will just comment on the last bit. Even Yip Man made exaggerations of his training to sell his school. "This day in age" has different qualifiers and contexts to different people born in different decades and in different cultures. As such it seems to be better to simply use the "duck" principle. Remember that on the look part a

Looks different than a

But they are both ducks so arguing over plumage just causes "issues" that are best avoided.

I agree. But being a discussion forum people will point out various things, it's kinda the whole point. Each of us will have an opinion, some will be more adamant than others, lol. The best we can hope for is to broaden our outlook and possibly learn a new perspective. We don't have to agree but should come to a mutual understanding to respect anothers opinion. BTW, I'm not Yip Man lineage, I'm Yuen family, we have enough of our own controversies I don't need anyone elses, lol.