Wing Chun Sparring
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
So you seem to be agreeing with what I wrote? Biu Gee is the "exception, not the rule." Sifu Phillips is not "losing" but "really" fighting in those clips, so someone can't claim he is using valid Wing Chun mechanics by deferring to the Biu Gee form. As I said before, the Biu Gee methods are not meant to be considered standard basic practice. What I see Sifu Phillips doing is moving that way as part of his standard basic practice.
Maybe. But then one could argue that if you feel the need to depart from Wing Chun and use "extra techniques and tactics", then maybe the Wing Chun you were training wasn't really a "practical art" to begin with.
Juany118
Senior Master
Not really I think, because of context. Are the videos you point to "masters?" No they aren't. What we have are "rookies" and maybe "journeyman." This means that they are more likely to find themselves in a spot of bother and needing to use the techniques in the form.. Some may not have even really learned the form yet so when they end up under pressure they react in a "non-WC" manner.
As for your "practical art" response, you again are basing it on a false premise because it ignores the following
1. All TMA's have weaknesses in techniques, or even a lack of in some respects. So using your logic all TMAs are impractical.
2. It fails to look at the videos you keep trumpeting about in context. Was it really WC? If so have the people in them learned the entire system? Ignoring the later is akin to saying physics is not a practical science because a high school student who learned physics can't do the math to explain the dynamics of a pulsar.
3. It ignores that at this point the various WC Lineages have a few obvious differences in terms of techniques.
Not really I think, because of context. Are the videos you point to "masters?" No they aren't. What we have are "rookies" and maybe "journeyman."
---I don't know about "master" but Sifu Mark Phillips is a well-known and well respected instructor in the UK that has been teaching for many years. So, yeah....he is more than just a "journeyman."
As for your "practical art" response, you again are basing it on a false premise because it ignores the following
---I was playing the "devil's advocate here to some extent. I'm not going to continue to argue. But if Wing Chun was developed as a "practical martial art" then shouldn't it remain a "practical martial art"? Now it may very well need some updating for modern fighting environments! But then shouldn't we all be going back and including those updates in the basic training rather than continue to do what has become a bit "outdated" and "impractical"? (at least if you buy into the idea that you need to change things or add things in when actually sparring). Again, just food for thought!
---I don't know about "master" but Sifu Mark Phillips is a well-known and well respected instructor in the UK that has been teaching for many years. So, yeah....he is more than just a "journeyman."
As for your "practical art" response, you again are basing it on a false premise because it ignores the following
---I was playing the "devil's advocate here to some extent. I'm not going to continue to argue. But if Wing Chun was developed as a "practical martial art" then shouldn't it remain a "practical martial art"? Now it may very well need some updating for modern fighting environments! But then shouldn't we all be going back and including those updates in the basic training rather than continue to do what has become a bit "outdated" and "impractical"? (at least if you buy into the idea that you need to change things or add things in when actually sparring). Again, just food for thought!
Juany118
Senior Master
The problem is to play devil's advocate you need to do so in context and addressing the issues I point out, in essence using verifiable data. Instead you are basing your advocacy on unverifiable videos lacking context.
I also think you are kinda moving goal posts. First it was "that isn't WC" not it's "well okay Biu Jee is WC but it shouldn't be used extensively.". The skills taught in all of the time are to be used as needed, period. Whether they are used extensively or not is purely situational... aka in the context of the encounter. In the end, if you win, well then it worked and what techniques were used is irrelevant. You are actually now using an argument similar to that old thread where some people nitpicked over whether a bong was "just" a remedial action.
Last edited:
When it comes to training it is not about who he is, but who he teaches. If the people he teaches are not yet at a master level, he should be also teaching them how to handle a situation when things do not go your way. Perhaps this is a fault of many WC practises, that we teach people things that are based on an assumption that we will make no errors. Meaning techniques that if they work we win.
In BJJ you may very well be teaching picture perfect techniques, but when rolling you actually as a beginner learn to defend yourself initially. Reason is that you will get tapped out multiple times and your struggle will mainly be to extend the time you can stay out of a finisher so to speak.
In boxing you will during sparring initially be tutored about not letting your defense slip, everytime you do they will punch you. Just hard enough to remind you to keep defense up but not enough to make you mentally unwilling to continue. This teaches you to keep a solid defense and an improved mental toughness.
WC perhaps the focus at many clubs or maybe even down to generic drills is offensive ability, no lessons in what to do when things go wrong. If the teacher is bent on not sharing the secrets of Biu jee for instance because we fear a beginner to rely on last resort techniques rather than focusing on perfecting their ability to control the fight to their favor. As such perhaps there is a lack of defensive strategy not because it does not exist but because traditional approach where the secrets of that form is not revealed until other forms are mastered.
Perhaps we are simply mastering each form too slowly. Or perhaps we are lacking that generic fighting knowledge prior to learning WC. Many of the famous names actually participated in fights long before learning Wing Chun. (this of course is a vague statement from me as I have not checked if this last theory is even a possibility)
These are just comments that may be discussed, I do not claim any of it to be fact or truth but merely a different angle on things.
I have sadly not yet seen anything that indicates that those extra things mentioned are not already part of WT forms. Then again changing an art is standard, at least TMAs are constantly evolving in the west. Dilluted or improved is another discussion altogether.[/QUOTE]
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Maybe. But then one could argue that if you feel the need to depart from Wing Chun and use "extra techniques and tactics", then maybe the Wing Chun you were training wasn't really a "practical art" to begin with.
none of them are because they are not KPM,s martial art. I often use swimming as an example of a self defence skill here.
Chun probably dosent teach it. the principles may not even match. but you get thrown in the ocean you may have wanted to train it at some point.
you have to bolt on skills to become more versatile.
Juany118
Senior Master
[/QUOTE]
I think one thing is missed with most MA, how is it taught. Lots of people study MA and never get past light or points sparing, even many grappling arts do light sparing. This doesn't put you under anything even vaguely resembling real pressure. So you will often (imo more often than not) have an issue of teaching and not the art. Think of it like being a doctor. Doctors don't just go to medical school and then hang a shingle up somewhere, they also get put under pressure as an intern in a hospital so they can make the right decision under pressure. As I said elsewhere you will see what KPM calls "sloppy kick boxing" in just about every striking MA, and you will see "sloppy wrestling" in almost every grappling art. I put this off on instruction.
As for the order of the forms I think the issue is more about the philosophy of the art. WC is a very aggressive Martial art. I sometimes use a line from Shakespeare to describe it, "once more into the breach my friend, once more." I think the "fighting" forms are put "up front" in order to better instill that attitude.
I agree, this about being put under pressure is very important. It is sort of what I have wanted to say. You do not just attend classes for some time and then you are a WC practitioner meaning you do pure and perfect WC. Problem is that you can not do poor WC. Just like a boxer can not do poor boxing. When you do poorly you get beat, lose your structure and eventually your mental ability to remain focused and centered.
Being a technician or sufficient grade is similar to being someone who finished medical school. Without having been an intern you are not ready for the job and can not be expected to do it at a good enough level. So without having used WC, fighting, sparring or whatever else, you are perhaps not ready yet to use it. Problem then is to define how do we get that experience and how can we know it is sufficient for the task? (Also something to discuss for this topic perhaps)
Problem might be that this mentality works in eastern culture but for western culture with impatience and the eagerness to climb that ladder as quickly as possible. Perhaps we do require a different way to learn the aggressive nature of WC. Maybe we are influenced too much by having a different view or even understanding of martial art. Watching UFC, knowing boxing. Not having the patience to not look ahead while learning our first form...
I do not know, nothing I have put much thought into previously.
Interesting thought, and it fits with my experience.
My two cents regarding WC/WT is worth just about that, given that I'm a novice who has only been training in the art for a little over 8 months. Nevertheless, I do come into it with 35 years of prior experience in other arts, most of which place a heavy emphasis on sparring. That perhaps gives me a different perspective from the average WC student.
I can spar using strictly what I've learned of a "pure", "classical" WT structure. I'm not tremendously good at it and I wouldn't want to stick exclusively to that structure while going full-contact against an experienced fighter unless you paid me really good money to make it worth the extra punches I would be eating. I have applied bits of my WT effectively in sparring against some experienced kickboxers and MMA fighters. I do that by working within my normal structures and slipping in little bits of the WT in the moments when the opportunity presents itself. Generally that seems to happen in the "dirty boxing" range when I recognize a line of attack that I might not normally utilize based on my Muay Thai/Jiu-jitsu experience.
When I'm in WT class, I am doing my best to learn and practice the pure art as I am being taught it. Outside of class, I'm more focused on understanding how I can apply the underlying concepts and mechanics wherever they might be applicable. Some of the best lessons for me come from questions that arise when looking at how WT does things differently from arts I am more experienced in. "How can you generate solid punching power with no hip rotation?" "How can you maintain forward pressure while using an extremely back-weighted stance?" As I've learned the answers to these, I've been able to apply those principles to make my boxing punches (which do use hip rotation and don't use an extreme back-weighted stance) even more powerful. A lot of the WT/WC structures gain effectiveness from some fairly subtle adjustments to the skeletal alignment and muscular linkage. As I become more aware of those, it just makes my Boxing, Muay Thai, and Jiu-Jitsu that much more solid. As you say, it's refining and augmenting what I already know.
Juany118
Senior Master
I don't even think it is only patience but also the idea of a martial art having a philosophy beyond "beat the other guy." Example some WC Lineages forms have 108 movements in each form for no other reason that 108 is an important number in Buddhism. So tbh there is likely a little bit of WC one might even be able to argue is superfluous in some lineages. Then add the philosophy of combat on top of the instant gratification...
The problem is to play devil's advocate you need to do so in context
----I'm following the context just fine. I'm afraid you might be the one having some trouble with context.
and addressing the issues I point out,
---Your issues were simply being argumentative. I told you I wasn't going to argue any more.
Instead you are basing your advocacy on unverifiable videos lacking context.
---My response about Wing Chun as a practical art were made in reply to drop bear who had copied the post featuring Mark Phillips' video clips. He said something about changing and including things in order to be "practical." I take it he was referring to the things he had seen Sifu Phillips doing in the clips. So what exactly was "unverified" or "lacking context" about those particular clips??? The context of my response was perfectly in line with drop bear's comment.
I also think you are kinda moving goal posts. First it was "that isn't WC" not it's "well okay Biu Jee is WC but it shouldn't be used extensively.".
----Again, you seem to not be following the context of the comments very well. "Nobody Important" justified what Mark Phillips was doing (bending at the waist and hunching forward) by saying it came from Biu Gee. I disagreed and just think he has incorporated boxing mechanics in to his Wing Chun. I never said Biu Gee wasn't Wing Chun, or that it shouldn't be used when appropriate. But I've learned that Biu Gee was meant for "emergency situations". It is taught as an advanced level and not used as a way to teach the core basic mechanics. That is pretty standard Wing Chun teaching. Now you can choose to disagree with that pretty standard Wing Chun approach to Biu Gee. But that was a side comment on the main point, which was the way Phillips was moving as his basic core mechanic. It wasn't "moving goal posts".
The skills taught in all of the time are to be used as needed, period. Whether they are used extensively or not is purely situational... aka in the context of the encounter.
---So you think that Biu Gee idea of "breaking the rules" and doing things that typically violate good Wing Chun structure....like bending at the waist and hunching forward to avoid a blow you were unprepared for, is something should be part of someone's basic core motion, even when they aren't needing to dodge an unexpected blow? But again, that's just a side point.
In the end, if you win, well then it worked and what techniques were used is irrelevant.
---Which goes back to one of my original questions/points......Are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring? Is sparring a way to test and find holes in your Wing Chun training? Or is Wing Chun just one way to get good at sparring so you can win? Those are two very different mindsets and approaches. And I think that point has been lost on some of the people posting on this thread.
----I'm following the context just fine. I'm afraid you might be the one having some trouble with context.
and addressing the issues I point out,
---Your issues were simply being argumentative. I told you I wasn't going to argue any more.
Instead you are basing your advocacy on unverifiable videos lacking context.
---My response about Wing Chun as a practical art were made in reply to drop bear who had copied the post featuring Mark Phillips' video clips. He said something about changing and including things in order to be "practical." I take it he was referring to the things he had seen Sifu Phillips doing in the clips. So what exactly was "unverified" or "lacking context" about those particular clips??? The context of my response was perfectly in line with drop bear's comment.
I also think you are kinda moving goal posts. First it was "that isn't WC" not it's "well okay Biu Jee is WC but it shouldn't be used extensively.".
----Again, you seem to not be following the context of the comments very well. "Nobody Important" justified what Mark Phillips was doing (bending at the waist and hunching forward) by saying it came from Biu Gee. I disagreed and just think he has incorporated boxing mechanics in to his Wing Chun. I never said Biu Gee wasn't Wing Chun, or that it shouldn't be used when appropriate. But I've learned that Biu Gee was meant for "emergency situations". It is taught as an advanced level and not used as a way to teach the core basic mechanics. That is pretty standard Wing Chun teaching. Now you can choose to disagree with that pretty standard Wing Chun approach to Biu Gee. But that was a side comment on the main point, which was the way Phillips was moving as his basic core mechanic. It wasn't "moving goal posts".
The skills taught in all of the time are to be used as needed, period. Whether they are used extensively or not is purely situational... aka in the context of the encounter.
---So you think that Biu Gee idea of "breaking the rules" and doing things that typically violate good Wing Chun structure....like bending at the waist and hunching forward to avoid a blow you were unprepared for, is something should be part of someone's basic core motion, even when they aren't needing to dodge an unexpected blow? But again, that's just a side point.
In the end, if you win, well then it worked and what techniques were used is irrelevant.
---Which goes back to one of my original questions/points......Are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring? Is sparring a way to test and find holes in your Wing Chun training? Or is Wing Chun just one way to get good at sparring so you can win? Those are two very different mindsets and approaches. And I think that point has been lost on some of the people posting on this thread.
Jake104
Black Belt
Which goes back to one of my original questions/points......Are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring/fighting?Both..... Is sparring a way to test and find holes in your Wing Chun training?YES...... Or is Wing Chun just one way to get good at sparring (fighting is the ultimate goal..sparring is a tool! )so you can win?Yes.......Those are two very different mindsets and approaches. Same Same ( who says it's has to be a separate mindset?) And I think that point has been lost on some of the people posting on this thread.Yes cause most of us who take martial arts are more concerned about the end results. Unless you're writing a book on WC, sparring and using this thread as research?....I really don't see the point of 8 pages of arguing when you could be training and answering your own questions
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
I think this part is good for a few reasons.
1. it illustrates an issue I think we have in any analysis of WC, good or bad. Example, the Lineage I study not only includes high kicks in the forms and steps rather than slides, we do not use the back weighted stance. We use a a left or right neutral stance and a front stance that has the weight balanced front and back. If something as basic as structure can be different is it even really possible to come to any firm conclusion? I will be honest I can be a bit overly analytical at times, the wife says "fffing Mr. Spock where are your pointy ears" often.
2. I think the "gain effectiveness" kinda goes along with one thing I have said from my experience with WC (still definitely learning) and speaking with Sifu's of other CMA's (I was surprised how often they are willing to talk "shop" honestly when strangers ask, but I do admittedly "name drop" my occupation). In essence the strict forms of training and drills being to teach the student the "feel" of the principles and methods of the art. A more obvious example is someone who studies Crane Kung Fu doesn't fight like this...
However by doing such training you learn balance and how your connection to the earth, your grounding, should feel, and this is adaptable within limits. The forms, the picture perfect structure is a teaching tool so you know how your body should "feel" as you are applying the skills that attack and defend. At least that's my take.
Juany118
Senior Master
well you win then because you are clearly ignoring context simply because you are taking YouTube video titles at face value for gosh sake and you basically are saying "if you disagree with me you are being argumentative and I am done." You also ignore the fact that basic WC structures are not only different across lineages but that they are often simply teaching tools. You also ignore the fact that if you are fighting/sparring without having learned Biu Jee you are going to collapse because that form is about dealing with being in a "bad spot." This and much more is the context of what I speak and it is absent from your points.
these issues are not simply argumentative. A martial art must be seen holistically and in context from level to level and I am simply pointing out this fact.
Last edited:
Jake104
Black Belt
So what do you guys think of this clip? I really enjoyed it! Thanks for posting!!
Or this one? He flows well and looks good. But is this "classical" Wing Chun? Or a mix of Wing Chun and a lot of western boxing mechanics? I really enjoyed that one too! Thanks again!!
How about this one? Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics? Again I thank you! Please post more videos!!
I don't mean to pick on Sifu Phillips. But I remembered that he has actually produced a DVD on Wing Chun sparring and what I saw didn't exactly stick with Wing Chun entirely.
anerlich
Brown Belt
anerlich
Brown Belt
I cant really buy SLT as being put up front as a "fighting form". It is basic movements and combinations with little or no footwork (at least in many schools) done one side at a time. IMO it is also the most meditative of the three empty hand forms, and many people sell it as Wing Chun's answer to Qigong, which is probably fine if you've done no other Qigong or breathwork. Its primary purpose in my view is to develop basic posture and structure. Other training methods do that too, of course.
I was always told the dummy movements are closer to actual fighting. Not sure I agree 100%, but that's what I was always told.
Last edited:
