Wing Chun As An Art

[Steve]

Not meaningless, at all. I teach almost nothing that is designed to kill (a few things I was taught, which I will cover eventually, but aren't part of my normal curriculum). Many of the things I teach can be used for destruction (like the small-bone bind I mentioned earlier). It's not even remotely untrainable. I've seen it executed at speed in response to an attack with intent. That only works, however, if the partner ("attacker") is willing to acknowledge the danger and drop out of the technique and tap, rather than fighting against it. There's a less destructive move that works a bit further up the wrist, and this can be used on a resisting opponent, but must be abandoned if it slips lower. We often use that one for training with speed, as the movement is nearly identical. And when we train the exact movement of the destruction in drills, we just slow it down to expand the time the pain exists, so there's time to tap out. Putting those two parts together allows us to train the full range of the technique (slow) and the motions at speed (the alternative further up the wrist).

Training a technique doesn't require exact replication every time. If it did, shadow boxing would be a useless exercise.

Depends on the point at hand. I think that if you are distinguishing between "too destructive" and "too deadly" you are caught up in a red herring. If it's too dangerous to apply, it's too dangerous to train effectively.

Regarding the rest, I've shared lengthy posts many times explaining why some martial arts are better at developing skill and expertise than others. I don't have the patience to start over as though this is a new topic again.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on the point at hand. I think that if you are distinguishing between "too destructive" and "too deadly" you are caught up in a red herring. If it's too dangerous to apply, it's too dangerous to train effectively.

Except that I've just demonstrated it's not. That training is similar to the training a boxer uses for developing a powerful uppercut. He can't go around applying that full-power knockout punch to his sparring partners all the time. He trains the power on bags, the movement in shadowboxing and other drills, and a safer (softer) application of the technique to his sparring partners. The primary difference is that he can later deliver that punch with power in his competition.

 

[Steve]

Except that I've just demonstrated it's not. That training is similar to the training a boxer uses for developing a powerful uppercut. He can't go around applying that full-power knockout punch to his sparring partners all the time. He trains the power on bags, the movement in shadowboxing and other drills, and a safer (softer) application of the technique to his sparring partners. The primary difference is that he can later deliver that punch with power in his competition.

Except that you haven't. I've explained this so many times. Some people get it. Some don't. Some won't. If you want to know my response, I invite you to read the thousands of words I've written on the subject over the last several years. Your last sentence is an essential one.

To the question you asked earlier, which is why I disagreed with your post, I think I've answered it multiple times without allowing you to draw me into taking a side in your red herring argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

your red herring argument

That's unnecessary, Steve.

 

[Steve]

That's unnecessary, Steve.

My intent isn't to attack you. I disagreed with your post. You asked why. I answered: I think the distinction between "destruction" and "deadly" is a red herring. And multiple times, you have attempted to draw me into that very argument.

 

[Martial D]

I never said deadly. I said destructive.

So, if I use

• standing arm bars without a base for submission (it's a takedown occasionally, but not dependably if someone resists, and intended to break)
• small binding wrist locks
• shoulder lock takedowns that expose the shoulder to injury
• finger locks

That's just a few I could pull in a few seconds from what I know. As I said, it wouldn't be a very effective system - too many gaps that should be filled by the less-destructive techniques - but all of those can too easily cause injury if done at speed against a resisting opponent, so aren't really safe for sparring.

Of that list of things, some are done already, every day, in sparring, and some simply don't work against a resisting opponent. Saying of joint locks "without a base for submission" as a reason it can't be used in sparring is no different than saying punches and kicks can't, as they are also quite destructive and can cause head trauma or death, or in your words, 'easily cause injury if done at speed'.

Small joint locks ala aikido just..don't work. Maybe if you catch someone off guard from behind, but not if the fight is already on. You won't destroy a thing fishing for a wrist while getting pummeled. This is what the preponderance of the evidence tells us. Granted even extremely low percentage techniques like that can land, but people also can...win the lotto.

Still not buying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My intent isn't to attack you. I disagreed with your post. You asked why. I answered: I think the distinction between "destruction" and "deadly" is a red herring. And multiple times, you have attempted to draw me into that very argument.

I disagree that there's not a functional difference. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to divert, which this is not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Of that list of things, some are done already, every day, in sparring, and some simply don't work against a resisting opponent. Saying of joint locks "without a base for submission" as a reason it can't be used in sparring is no different than saying punches and kicks can't, as they are also quite destructive and can cause head trauma or death, or in your words, 'easily cause injury if done at speed'.

Small joint locks ala aikido just..don't work. Maybe if you catch someone off guard from behind, but not if the fight is already on. You won't destroy a thing fishing for a wrist while getting pummeled. This is what the preponderance of the evidence tells us. Granted even extremely low percentage techniques like that can land, but people also can...win the lotto.

Still not buying.

Interesting. Maybe explain to the police officers who use small joint locks how ineffective they are. They are specialized moves that don't work in all situations, but when they are actually available, they are effective. The problem with them is that people (including some who really like them) assume they are meant to be applied in places where they are not.

My point about a joint lock that doesn't have a base for submission is that it's easily escaped if you don't take it past the lock (to the point of injury). That makes it useless in sparring, because you have to either go for an injury (not desirable in sparring), or a resisting opponent can use the position against you. Some of these can be converted to takedowns, where they gain a base for submission (the ground becomes the base), but not all can be realistically converted to submissions.

 

[Steve]

I disagree that there's not a functional difference. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to divert, which this is not.

Actually, a red herring is simply a distraction from the point. It can be intentional or unintentional. Look it up. But your mistaken idea that a red herring is always deliberate explains why you're taking it so personally.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, a red herring is simply a distraction from the point. It can be intentional or unintentional. Look it up. But your mistaken idea that a red herring is always deliberate explains why you're taking it so personally.

I'll take your word on that - I trust your knowledge when you make a statement like that. And I don't feel like I'm taking it personally - I'm just frustrated that your counter-arguments seem to ignore (from my point of view - an important note) what appears to me to be clear logic. It means one or both of us is missing a key point, and I can't figure out for certain which it is. I don't think it's me, but then I wouldn't, if I was the one missing the point.

We're running into an area where we've frustrated each other before, and I guess it's time to drop it again. Maybe someday we'll figure out a common point on this to clarify what the real issue is.

 

[Martial D]

Interesting. Maybe explain to the police officers who use small joint locks how ineffective they are. They are specialized moves that don't work in all situations, but when they are actually available, they are effective. The problem with them is that people (including some who really like them) assume they are meant to be applied in places where they are not.

My point about a joint lock that doesn't have a base for submission is that it's easily escaped if you don't take it past the lock (to the point of injury). That makes it useless in sparring, because you have to either go for an injury (not desirable in sparring), or a resisting opponent can use the position against you. Some of these can be converted to takedowns, where they gain a base for submission (the ground becomes the base), but not all can be realistically converted to submissions.

Well ya, what works against a drunk when its 2 or 3 cops on one guy is completely different than actual combat. So, that isn't really apt.

And what seem to 'easily escape' you is once a join lock or choke is applied, its tap or snap. Just because you can keep going and ignore the tap doesn't make the technique somehow unsuitable for sparring. BJJ is basically ALL sparring with joint locks and chokes, yet somehow nobody dies and rarely are limbs broken. Yet, sou seem to be stipulating that there are joint locks that you for some reason cant submit to, to which I say...where's the beef?

Still sounds like a lot of excuses to maintain a fantasy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well ya, what works against a drunk when its 2 or 3 cops on one guy is completely different than actual combat. So, that isn't really apt.

And what seem to 'easily escape' you is once a join lock or choke is applied, its tap or snap. Just because you can keep going and ignore the tap doesn't make the technique somehow unsuitable for sparring. BJJ is basically ALL sparring with joint locks and chokes, yet somehow nobody dies and rarely are limbs broken. Yet, sou seem to be stipulating that there are joint locks that you for some reason cant submit to, to which I say...where's the beef?

Still sounds like a lot of excuses to maintain a fantasy.

So, what cops deal with can be dismissed out of hand? That's a pretty high level of confirmation bias you're working with.

And, actually, the fact that a technique can be ignored if not taken to injury is PRECISELY a reason it's not useful for sparring. What good would such a technique do in that context? And I'm well aware that BJJ is all sparring with joint locks and chokes - we share some of the same techniques with them. They also have techniques they don't allow in competition. Why? Because they are too likely to cause injury. Those are the kinds of techniques I'm talking about. They work, but not in a way that's routinely (and predictably) useful in competition.

Now, unless you're going to say that BJJ and Judo are living a fantasy when they decide too many injuries happen from a given technique....

 

[ShortBridge]

What does anything have to do with "Wing Chun as an Art?"

Don't you guys get tired of having the same sparring debate on every thread no matter what the topic? It's wearing me out.

 

[wayfaring]

Hey everybody - I kind of started this thread and dropped off for a bit - lot of things going on.

I wanted to say thanks so much for everyone's positive energy and contribution on the thread. Overall some really awesome posts and great viewpoints. There is a bit of squabbling too but it's all good.

I'm seeing a few common themes, and I thought I'd highlight them and comment.

1) Sparring - it probably would be better if we did more of it together somehow, like old Bullshido throwdowns. It is so much harder to meaningfully discuss sparring remotely.

2) Lineage Isolation - some seem to have more interaction - Ip Man has biggest lineage thread and may interact more. I'm actually trying to change this isolation both in practice and attitude. Currently I'm co-teaching and training in a local park with another Ip Man sr. practitioner Ip Ching line. I am HFY lineage. We are having fun training together teaching, chi sau, etc. A Duncan Leung student stopped by Sunday and interacted. Good energy good training. My viewpoint and aim is to bridge past lineage isolation, wake up the conversation in public about wing chun in general, and help establish its future.

3) BJJ / Grappling community - it is very strong. The sport orientation and competition helps team oriented behavior. It would be good to model this positive in our art.

I guess that's what I've got with respect to pulling together some positives for recommendations for our community for Wing Chun as an art.

Thanks for continuing the discussion and I'll jump in where I can.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey everybody - I kind of started this thread and dropped off for a bit - lot of things going on.

I wanted to say thanks so much for everyone's positive energy and contribution on the thread. Overall some really awesome posts and great viewpoints. There is a bit of squabbling too but it's all good.

I'm seeing a few common themes, and I thought I'd highlight them and comment.

1) Sparring - it probably would be better if we did more of it together somehow, like old Bullshido throwdowns. It is so much harder to meaningfully discuss sparring remotely.

2) Lineage Isolation - some seem to have more interaction - Ip Man has biggest lineage thread and may interact more. I'm actually trying to change this isolation both in practice and attitude. Currently I'm co-teaching and training in a local park with another Ip Man sr. practitioner Ip Ching line. I am HFY lineage. We are having fun training together teaching, chi sau, etc. A Duncan Leung student stopped by Sunday and interacted. Good energy good training. My viewpoint and aim is to bridge past lineage isolation, wake up the conversation in public about wing chun in general, and help establish its future.

3) BJJ / Grappling community - it is very strong. The sport orientation and competition helps team oriented behavior. It would be good to model this positive in our art.

I guess that's what I've got with respect to pulling together some positives for recommendations for our community for Wing Chun as an art.

Thanks for continuing the discussion and I'll jump in where I can.

Remind me where you are geographically located, Wayfaring? (I don't think it really matters, but my mind seems to categorize by area.)

 

[wayfaring]

Remind me where you are geographically located, Wayfaring? (I don't think it really matters, but my mind seems to categorize by area.)

Colorado

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Colorado

Thanks!

 

[drop bear]

Except that I've just demonstrated it's not. That training is similar to the training a boxer uses for developing a powerful uppercut. He can't go around applying that full-power knockout punch to his sparring partners all the time. He trains the power on bags, the movement in shadowboxing and other drills, and a safer (softer) application of the technique to his sparring partners. The primary difference is that he can later deliver that punch with power in his competition.

You can still do the punch. You just don't live train knocking guys out.

I can stop an attack with a moderate uppercut.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can still do the punch. You just don't live train knocking guys out.

I can stop an attack with a moderate uppercut.

And I can do the destructive techniques live. I just have to ratchet back from them and allow the person to tap out (knowing they could choose to take advantage of that holding back). It's a limitation inherent in practicing those techniques. Full-speed application doesn't get to finish. Full-range application has to slow down. I'd love to change the rules of body mechanics, but I don't have a holodeck. Someday...

 

[drop bear]

And I can do the destructive techniques live. I just have to ratchet back from them and allow the person to tap out (knowing they could choose to take advantage of that holding back). It's a limitation inherent in practicing those techniques. Full-speed application doesn't get to finish. Full-range application has to slow down. I'd love to change the rules of body mechanics, but I don't have a holodeck. Someday...

Then it is not too destructive or deadly to spar.