Wing Chun As An Art

[Kung Fu Wang]

Even in the striking art, you can still make the "partial sparring" to be fun.

For example, if you can hit (or kick) my body within 20 punches (or 20 kicks), you win that round. Otherwise I win that round. Test it for 15 rounds and record for the result for that day. Keep daily record for 1 year and see your progress.

 

[ShortBridge]

This is a good argument for why sparring is a good thing to do, but not the be-all, end-all goal, objective, and test of a martial art. If the martial art becomes about sparring, then it ceases to be a martial art and has become a sport. That doesn't mean that sparring isn't useful in martial arts, just that it shouldn't define them.

 

[Flying Crane]

I actually agree with a lot of that. Every training method has its weaknesses, including each of the many forms of sparring. Personally I think the best approach is to find complementary training methods so that the strengths of one can balance out the weaknesses of another. I respect many martial artists who reject sparring entirely, but I disagree with them.

You are right that grappling methods, in general, allow you to spar safely with more intensity than striking methods. (With some exceptions. For example, there are throwing methods that can inflict plenty of damage if you apply with full damaging intent every time.) I disagree that the choices for most strikes are limited to "hit hard enough to inflict real injury" vs "hit so light that your sparring partner can just ignore the shot." There is a huge range of gradations of force possible which allow the recipient of a blow to respect the impact without being seriously damaged.

As far as the "too deadly to spar" argument, I do see it periodically, although not always phrased in that exact way.

Here's a quote from our own Mook Jong Man. He doesn't dismiss all sparring, but he does explicitly say that full-contact sparring in WC is impossible because the participants would end up dead or in the hospital:

I'm good with this. I think the real issue is to recognize that it is a nuanced issue. I think that is what often gets overlooked, and an over-simplified statement emphasizes where there can be misunderstanding.

 

[Flying Crane]

To some extent, that is a cop out. I don't buy it. Boxing is pretty darn destructive as well if done bare-knuckle, yet they manage to put on gloves and spar realistically and effectively just fine. Your martial art should not be a "weapon of mass destruction". There are plenty of times when defending yourself that you would be in worlds of trouble if you "destroyed" the other person. Drunk Uncle Ed at the New Year's eve party would be one example. A teenager trying to pick your pocket would be another. If your martial art does not allow for "dialing down the setting" to something other than "kill", then maybe you need to look for another martial art ("you in general, not "you" in particular Michael).

I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I suspect you have fundamentally overlooked or misunderstood something.

 

[drop bear]

This is a good argument for why sparring is a good thing to do, but not the be-all, end-all goal, objective, and test of a martial art. If the martial art becomes about sparring, then it ceases to be a martial art and has become a sport. That doesn't mean that sparring isn't useful in martial arts, just that it shouldn't define them.

If we looked at wrestling. Which is probably the oldest martial art. Its concept of sport is very important to its development.

And there are numerous cultures that wrestled in preparation for war.

 

[drop bear]

Oh look, a posting specifically about Wing Chun quickly became one about BJJ and MMA and why they are better. Who saw that coming? Oh that's right, me.

This is half the problem. Instead of looking at what already works and just incorporating ideas you like.

It becomes this pride issue.

 

[drop bear]

I have to take issue with this comment, as I believe it is not an accurate representation of the real message or real reasons why someone may not be a fan of sparring.

Rarely does anyone but the truly delusional make the tired old claim that their method is "too deadly" for sparring. The accusation of that claim is itself a tired old claim.

It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.

These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring.

Grappling methods have a training advantage in this regard. Their methods can be used in a less-than-destructive way, and still be effective. Striking methods are at a training disadvantage in that regard. When they are done in a less-than-destructive way, they are often no longer effective. It becomes easy for the sparring partner to ignore the technique with which they were just hit.

Sparring can still be a useful exercise, but it depends on what someone is hoping to get from it. At the same time, it can undermine some important skills as well. It can train someone to habitually execute their methods in a non-destructive way, undermining the very purpose of the training. So people make an evaluation as to the relative worth. They may develop some skills at the detriment of others, and they may decide that is a worthwhile trade off, that the positives outweigh the negatives. Or they may feel that the trade off is not worth it, that the negatives outweigh the positives. That is a judgement that everyone needs to make for themselves.

But it is a gross oversimplification to say that people claim their stuff is "too deadly" for sparring. It is almost always an issue with much more nuance than that. Ive never actually heard someone make that claim.

Well. You can grapple in a manner that really hurts people. Just people choose not to.

And that is even within the rules of sparring. Let alone doing some no rules really trying to cripple someone.

So grapplers do tend to dial down their techniques as well.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Oh look, a posting specifically about Wing Chun quickly became one about BJJ and MMA and why they are better. Who saw that coming? Oh that's right, me.

All the WC discussion can go into 2 different directions:

1. What WC have - Tang, Bong, Fu, center line, ...
2. What WC doesn't have - hook punch, roundhouse kick, grip fight, clinch, throw, ground game, ...

The roundhouse kick will require "body rotation". The moment that you add it into the WC system, The WC system will be "evolved". Some people like to see the evolution of WC. Some people do not.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Well. You can grapple in a manner that really hurts people. Just people choose not to.

This is true.

When you grab on one of your opponent's legs and hook his other leg off the ground, he will fall with his back (or head) on the ground. It can be a knock out throw. For the safety of sport, when you throw your opponent like this, you will grab on his jacket, pull on your lapel hold, and allow him to land on the ground slowly, and safely.

 

[ShortBridge]

You know, John, looking at your profile I would love an opportunity to train with you, work out with you, meet and talk with you. I'm interested in what you do, I recognize your credentials, and I'm sure that I could learn a lot from you that would make me a better martial artist. If the opportunity ever presented itself and you would have me, I would sincerely and respectfully value the experience.

But, I'm getting weary of the dismissive statements that you feel compelled to make about the system I study and teach any time someone brings it up. Maybe that's unreasonable of me. It is the internet, I suppose I should know better than to expect different from it at this point. Why are Wing Chun forums dead or flat? Because they are over-run with dissenters who chose to do something else and I guess are trying to save us from ourselves or something? I don't know. It does get tiring, though. I don't suppose that you see it that way and even if you did, there are 1,000 people ready to take your place if you were to ease up, so I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[drop bear]

You know, John, looking at your profile I would love an opportunity to train with you, work out with you, meet and talk with you. I'm interested in what you do, I recognize your credentials, and I'm sure that I could learn a lot from you that would make me a better martial artist. If the opportunity ever presented itself and you would have me, I would sincerely and respectfully value the experience.

But, I'm getting weary of the dismissive statements that you feel compelled to make about the system I study and teach any time someone brings it up. Maybe that's unreasonable of me. It is the internet, I suppose I should know better than to expect different from it at this point. Why are Wing Chun forums dead or flat? Because they are over-run with dissenters who chose to do something else and I guess are trying to save us from ourselves or something? I don't know. It does get tiring, though. I don't suppose that you see it that way and even if you did, there are 1,000 people ready to take your place if you were to ease up, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Then start less dismissive threads. Why is problems with the internet always someone else's fault?

Disagreement is one thing. But you are claiming your view is right here by default.

 

[KPM]

I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I suspect you have fundamentally overlooked or misunderstood something.

I did. As I said already....I think to some extent it is a cop out. You seem to be trying to justify some people's claim that they don't spar because the most effective part of their art would be of no use. That is a cop out. Effective fighting is about controlling distance, having a good defense, having an effective offense....being about to hit without being hit, etc. Techniques don't have to be deadly to do all of that. So I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But there is still that grain of justification for not sparring from a traditional mindset. Is it subconscious maybe?

 

[Flying Crane]

I did. As I said already....I think to some extent it is a cop out. You seem to be trying to justify some people's claim that they don't spar because the most effective part of their art would be of no use. That is a cop out. Effective fighting is about controlling distance, having a good defense, having an effective offense....being about to hit without being hit, etc. Techniques don't have to be deadly to do all of that. So I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But there is still that grain of justification for not sparring from a traditional mindset. Is it subconscious maybe?

Nope, yer missing it.

 

[wckf92]

But, I'm getting weary of the dismissive statements that you feel compelled to make about the system I study and teach any time someone brings it up. Maybe that's unreasonable of me. It is the internet, I suppose I should know better than to expect different from it at this point. Why are Wing Chun forums dead or flat? Because they are over-run with dissenters who chose to do something else and I guess are trying to save us from ourselves or something? I don't know. It does get tiring, though.

Good post

 

[KPM]

Nope, yer missing it.

"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.

These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."

---Sorry. Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me. What am I missing?

 

[Flying Crane]

"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.

These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."

---Sorry. Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me. What am I missing?

The whole message. You missed it.

Look, whether you like it or not, there are some legitimate reasons why some people are less than enthusiastic about sparring. It just isn't the end-all, be-all to develop combat and defense skills. You do what you want, what makes sense to you. Others will do likewise.

But if you want to be dismissive and wave it away as a "cop-out" then I guess any discussion we might have been able to have has already ended. There really is no point to it.

Good day.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^^ Annnnndddddd....there's the "cop out" I was referring to! Your "legitimate reasons" are still in the realm of "I'm too deadly to spar".....according to your prior statement that I copied just above. Again....subconscious?

 

[drop bear]

"It is true that some things are not appropriate for sparring. Certain things can be of little effect or even no effect at all if they are not done with full intent and full commitment, which would mean that they are then destructive. Destructive things, done with destructive intent, cannot be done in the context of sparring. I hope I don't need to explain that notion further, for anybody here.

These destructive things can be dialed back for use in sparring, but they are then ineffective. As such, it then becomes the responsibility of the sparring partner to acknowledge and honor the technique, when used in a non-destructive way. Maybe that is feasible, maybe it is not. It depends on the sparring partner, and the context and purpose of the sparring."

---Sorry. Still sounds like a bit of a "cop out" to me. What am I missing?

I specifically dont do this by the way. I dial back head kicks after just nailing too many guys. They are more than welcome to eat my soft kick and try to drive a counter back as if they suddenly have a chin of iron.

This means I throw the head kick and am looking for the counter. Rather than throwing the head kick and expecting them to drop.

I mean if they drop and I have footworked myself from a counter that never comes. Who cares.

If they counter from a kick that did not have as much effect as I thought it should. Bigger issue there.

And look if they eat a head kick I dont think there is much benifit practicing falling over.

 

[Flying Crane]

^^^^^^ Annnnndddddd....there's the "cop out" I was referring to! Your "legitimate reasons" are still in the realm of "I'm too deadly to spar".....according to your prior statement that I copied just above. Again....subconscious?

Huh? Are you still talking about this? I just can't take you seriously.

 

[anerlich]

Here's a quote from our own Mook Jong Man. He doesn't dismiss all sparring, but he does explicitly say that full-contact sparring in WC is impossible because the participants would end up dead or in the hospital:

I don't think I can buy this.

If it were true, some of the more high profile people like Emin Boztepe who claim 300+ real fights would have left a trail of corpses and almost certainly be serving lengthy sentences in goal. William Cheung would have died in 1986 and either Draheim or Mazza a decade later, depending on whose version of events you believe.

People claim the style is deadly, but many Wing Chun people who end up in fights fail to even moderately damage their attackers, let alone kill them.

Not to diss Wing Chun, but to call out ridiculous claims which deservedly lead to the style being dissed.

That said, there was a case late last century where some mouth boxing ended up with two well known Australian Wing Chun instructors getting into it, and one ending up in hospital. But he got out pretty quick and went on to teach for another couple of decades.