Wing Chun vs MMA

[Hanzou]

There's a very good reason you don't see WC guys fighting like WC guys in the octagon.

 

[Juany118]

There's a very good reason you don't see WC guys fighting like WC guys in the octagon.

Oh absolutely, and I think already been covered a couple times in the 20 odd pages we have here. But to summarize the different ideas posted before. Some of the managers in traditional WC that can be used to hinder a take down are not permitted by the rules, some of the managers taught that can get you out of a take down are also against the rules. Because of those rules you would then need room to maneuver to try an avoid the takedown completely but the Octagon itself prohibits that.

MMA is purpose built for the Octagon, anyone trying to use a "pure" traditional Martial Art enters that cage at their own peril. The street however in a "real" no holds barred hostile encounter, that is a different world.

 

[Juany118]

PS edited the above to include a summary.

 

[lklawson]

I was referring to a specific period of time when they were personally inviting people to Matches when MMA was barely in its infancy. I purposefully committed the Gracie Challenge stuff, especially as it relates to the Pride fights, simply because they didn't involve drastically different styles facing off (example Sakuraba vs Royler). Since the conversation here is about opposing styles, it didn't seem overly relevant.

Ummm... what?

The Gracie Challenge has been going on since like the 1920s or 1930s and they've had challengers ranging from Karateka to Boxers and everything in between, all WELL before UFC 1.

And, yeah, as I already wrote, one of the important points of MMA, never mind only WC vs MMA, was about opposing styles. UFC 1 proved that. Style vs Style.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

Ummm... what?

The Gracie Challenge has been going on since like the 1920s or 1930s and they've had challengers ranging from Karateka to Boxers and everything in between, all WELL before UFC 1.

And, yeah, as I already wrote, one of the important points of MMA, never mind only WC vs MMA, was about opposing styles. UFC 1 proved that. Style vs Style.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I know but since this is about MMA, I am focusing on the sons who got MMA as we know it off the ground. I could go into how Helio lost his challenges to Judo (got his arm broke) and how on a school vs school challenge Gracie Academy lost. That imo wouldn't be relevant to the conversation here however because Helio eventually even stopped engaging in matches that involved striking and zero striking takes us away from the MMA realm does it not. So felt taking us to the modern era where the results are more mixed and involve striking vs BJJ made the most sense in an MMA argument.

I then jumped to the Sakuraba fight because before that one, to my knowledge, you had a lot of challenge fights that never happened, each side blaming the other for why they didn't. That would have muddied the waters even more.

I agree that the Gracies were always about Challenging other arts, my point was that at no point did they manage to prove that one was better than the other.

 

[lklawson]

I agree that the Gracies were always about Challenging other arts, my point was that at no point did they manage to prove that one was better than the other.

I don't recall suggesting that they proved anything much in this thread, only that an important basis of MMA was style vs style in order to prove that one style is better. Whether or not that goal was met, it still was a stated goal. It's largely what made viewers want to watch the UFC matches. Ever has it been so.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

I don't recall suggesting that they proved anything much in this thread, only that an important basis of MMA was style vs style in order to prove that one style is better. Whether or not that goal was met, it still was a stated goal. It's largely what made viewers want to watch the UFC matches. Ever has it been so.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Okay, I see your point, I misunderstood where you were going.
I would also agree that, in the beginning, this was very much the case, now not so much. Imo once the rules, that led to the Unified Rules of MMA, started getting passed in the early 2000's more than a few maneuvers that various traditional martial arts could bring to bare became verboten. This has reduced the argument inside MMA, again just my opinion, to being more about simply striking vs grappling in general and not about specific styles of either.

 

[Hanzou]

Oh absolutely, and I think already been covered a couple times in the 20 odd pages we have here. But to summarize the different ideas posted before. Some of the managers in traditional WC that can be used to hinder a take down are not permitted by the rules, some of the managers taught that can get you out of a take down are also against the rules. Because of those rules you would then need room to maneuver to try an avoid the takedown completely but the Octagon itself prohibits that.

MMA is purpose built for the Octagon, anyone trying to use a "pure" traditional Martial Art enters that cage at their own peril. The street however in a "real" no holds barred hostile encounter, that is a different world.

And what rules in particular do you feel hinder the success of WC in MMA?

 

[Juany118]

And what rules in particular do you feel hinder the success of WC in MMA?

The rules I speak of don't just hinder WC but banning certain targets I think is an issue. I remember one time at work I had an MMA trained guy attempt a take down on me, the way I defeated it? Punches and Elbow strikes to the back of his head/neck/spine. That would be a DQ in MMA. If he would have gotten me down my next step would have been to go for his eyes, either with Bil Gee or punches (we focus on using the bottom two knuckles) or I would be striking/grabbing the throat, all of which are DQ offenses.

Note this doesn't just effect WC, many arts teach some or all of these maneuvers, but the rules outlawing these maneuvers removes a number of methods that can be used to stop/mitigate the threat of a take down and ground fighting.

 

[drop bear]

The rules I speak of don't just hinder WC but banning certain targets I think is an issue. I remember one time at work I had an MMA trained guy attempt a take down on me, the way I defeated it? Punches and Elbow strikes to the back of his head/neck/spine. That would be a DQ in MMA. If he would have gotten me down my next step would have been to go for his eyes, either with Bil Gee or punches (we focus on using the bottom two knuckles) or I would be striking/grabbing the throat, all of which are DQ offenses.

Note this doesn't just effect WC, many arts teach some or all of these maneuvers, but the rules outlawing these maneuvers removes a number of methods that can be used to stop/mitigate the threat of a take down and ground fighting.

Ha.

Downward elbows.

Called it.

See those elbows? perfectly fine. They are not 12 to 6.

 

[Juany118]

Ha.

Downward elbows.

Called it.

See those elbows? perfectly fine. They are not 12 to 6.

It's the target that matters not the direction. If you notice there he is targeting the kidneys.

Yep that hurts!!!! However back of the head, neck and spine shots are illegal in MMA and those are the spots with easy access for max force blows if you are facing the guy trying a take down similar to this, which is what I faced (he was a little more sprawled out). Then if he got me down (didn't come to that), since he was stronger, my best options would have been eyes, groin or throat, which are also illegal targets in the octagon

 

[Hanzou]

The rules I speak of don't just hinder WC but banning certain targets I think is an issue. I remember one time at work I had an MMA trained guy attempt a take down on me, the way I defeated it? Punches and Elbow strikes to the back of his head/neck/spine. That would be a DQ in MMA. If he would have gotten me down my next step would have been to go for his eyes, either with Bil Gee or punches (we focus on using the bottom two knuckles) or I would be striking/grabbing the throat, all of which are DQ offenses.

Note this doesn't just effect WC, many arts teach some or all of these maneuvers, but the rules outlawing these maneuvers removes a number of methods that can be used to stop/mitigate the threat of a take down and ground fighting.

Let me make sure I understand this;

You're saying that a single type of (possible) take down defense completely shuts down the entire Wing Chun curriculum? In other words, the reason we don't see all the trapping and hand techniques from Wing Chun within MMA is because WC guys aren't allowed to do downward elbow strikes to the spine or back of the head during a takedown?

What if they don't do a double leg takedown or a tackle? What if they do something like this;

An elbow strike to the spine isn't going to save you from that.

Why don't WC guys simply learn MMA style takedown defenses?

The inability to do ONE type of defense against ONE type of takedown doesn't explain the complete absence of WC within MMA.

And eye gouges while someone is on top of you dropping elbows and punches to your face? Seriously?

 

[drop bear]

It's the target that matters not the direction. If you notice there he is targeting the kidneys.

Yep that hurts!!!! However back of the head, neck and spine shots are illegal in MMA and those are the spots with easy access for max force blows if you are facing the guy trying a take down similar to this, which is what I faced (he was a little more sprawled out). Then if he got me down (didn't come to that), since he was stronger, my best options would have been eyes, groin or throat, which are also illegal targets in the octagon

If he gets you down he is going to throw downward elbows into your face while eyegouging you. Which would seriously suck.

This is the fun thing about rules. It is all well and good when you are going schoolyard on them. But they do have the same opportunity to do it back.

 

[Juany118]

Let me make sure I understand this;

You're saying that a single type of (possible) take down defense completely shuts down the entire Wing Chun curriculum? In other words, the reason we don't see all the trapping and hand techniques from Wing Chun within MMA is because WC guys aren't allowed to do downward elbow strikes to the spine or back of the head during a takedown?

What if they don't do a double leg takedown or a tackle? What if they do something like this;

An elbow strike to the spine isn't going to save you from that.

Why don't WC guys simply learn MMA style takedown defenses?

The inability to do ONE type of defense against ONE type of takedown doesn't explain the complete absence of WC within MMA.

And eye gouges while someone is on top of you dropping elbows and punches to your face? Seriously?

I am saying that limiting targets in general, not just the head/neck/spine limits many arts. So yes, the guy does that and gets you down. But once down, on the street, you can go for his groin out do small joint manipulations, both of which are out of bounds. You could go for the eyes before he flipped you over into the submission hold.

It's the totality of the "no go" targets that IMO is the limiting factor, no single one on its own. There are a number of MAs that are designed around the idea of not sizing up, testing and looking for openings, rather they are about going in with, basically, brutal force striking at the most vulnerable areas of the human body.

Also yeah I might not be able to eye gouge on the bottom but just reach up and grab a throat? Do a fast finger thrust to the eyes? Grab/strike groin? These are doable (such as when I grabbed a guys throat, not larynx was pressure to carotid and jugular, while he was punching me in the groin...lack of O2 to the brain beats an attempt at pain compliance). Now if these rules didn't exist MMA as an Art would be completely different of course, but that is really my point. MMA as an Art exists as it does because of the rules forcing a specific evolution. Those rules negatively impact other arts that evolved in an environment without rules.

 

[Juany118]

If he gets you down he is going to throw downward elbows into your face while eyegouging you. Which would seriously suck.

This is the fun thing about rules. It is all well and good when you are going schoolyard on them. But they do have the same opportunity to do it back.

Well in my experience, people who really train, fight like they train. The MMA trainers in my area train competition MMA so no eye gouging, just like in the octagon. That was also what I and Hanzou were talking about specifically, what about being in the Octagon limits an art. I just made an "I can't do this in the Octagon BUT I can do it on the street" argument.

 

[lklawson]

Grab/strike groin?

Joe Son

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[Hanzou]

I am saying that limiting targets in general, not just the head/neck/spine limits many arts. So yes, the guy does that and gets you down. But once down, on the street, you can go for his groin out do small joint manipulations, both of which are out of bounds. You could go for the eyes before he flipped you over into the submission hold.

I'm sorry, but everything you typed here is pure nonsense. The common result of a takedown in both MMA and "da streetz" is the mounted position, in which a person is sitting either on your chest, or on your stomach, and raining down blows on your face. Are you seriously saying that your answer to that situation is reaching for his groin or trying to catch his hand in order to bend his fingers back? I have yet to see ANYONE get out of that situation with an eye poke, a groin grab, or bending their fingers. They either roll over to their stomach, put up their hands to block the hits, get knocked out, are skilled enough to escape, or the assailant feels guilty because of the damage they're inflicting and walks away.

Do you honestly believe that ground grappling would have remained as prevalent as it is in both MMA and self defense if a bunch of school yard tricks could stop it? I mean, why spend years learning Bjj if all you need are eye pokes and dick grabs to counter the entire system? I can't believe people actually believe this stuff.

It's the totality of the "no go" targets that IMO is the limiting factor, no single one on its own. There are a number of MAs that are designed around the idea of not sizing up, testing and looking for openings, rather they are about going in with, basically, brutal force striking at the most vulnerable areas of the human body.

Also yeah I might not be able to eye gouge on the bottom but just reach up and grab a throat? Do a fast finger thrust to the eyes? Grab/strike groin? These are doable (such as when I grabbed a guys throat, not larynx was pressure to carotid and jugular, while he was punching me in the groin...lack of O2 to the brain beats an attempt at pain compliance). Now if these rules didn't exist MMA as an Art would be completely different of course, but that is really my point. MMA as an Art exists as it does because of the rules forcing a specific evolution. Those rules negatively impact other arts that evolved in an environment without rules.

LoL! You're going to reach up from the bottom of a mount and go for a throat grab? Don't you understand that a trained submission grappler would LOVE for you to do that while they're on top of you? Don't you understand that a grappler on top of you is in a dominant position and has far more control over the situation than you do from the bottom?

What am I saying, of course you don't.

 

[Juany118]

I'm sorry, but everything you typed here is pure nonsense. The common result of a takedown in both MMA and "da streetz" is the mounted position, in which a person is sitting either on your chest, or on your stomach, and raining down blows on your face. Are you seriously saying that your answer to that situation is reaching for his groin or trying to catch his hand in order to bend his fingers back? I have yet to see ANYONE get out of that situation with an eye poke, a groin grab, or bending their fingers. They either roll over to their stomach, put up their hands to block the hits, get knocked out, are skilled enough to escape, or the assailant feels guilty because of the damage they're inflicting and walks away.

Do you honestly believe that ground grappling would have remained as prevalent as it is in both MMA and self defense if a bunch of school yard tricks could stop it? I mean, why spend years learning Bjj if all you need are eye pokes and dick grabs to counter the entire system? I can't believe people actually believe this stuff.





LoL! You're going to reach up from the bottom of a mount and go for a throat grab? Don't you understand that a trained submission grappler would LOVE for you to do that while they're on top of you? Don't you understand that a grappler on top of you is in a dominant position and has far more control over the situation than you do from the bottom?

What am I saying, of course you don't.

Well since I have been in more than one real street fight I think I can say with confidence these things can work.

Now, as with every technique will they always work against every opponent? Of course not. My only point is to say this.

The rules of MMA, the gloves and the Octagon itself disadvantage many arts that did not evolve with those rules in mind. In the Octagon, MMA with always have the edge. On the street however, where there can be more room to maneuver and people of other Arts don't have to worry about the rules, that can limit how they are trained to strike and/grapple the scales become far more balanced. I am not saying someone doing Wing Chun, Karate, Kali, whatever will now miraculously beat the MMA guy (I think you might be under the impression that is what I am saying) on the street, just that it becomes far more a question of the fighter and not the Art. Full list of fouls noted in the following response.

 

[Juany118]

Joe Son

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

That was UFC 4, in 1994. Groin shots have been against the rules for some time now as have 12-6 elbows actually (forgot about that change). These rules have been in place since the mid 2000s. These rules were a double edged sword for different fighters, in the eyes of some. In terms of fouls, they hurt people who leaned too hard towards striking. Small joint manipulation fouls and the imposition of short rounds, hurt the "tire em out, wait em out" style of people who leaned hard towards grappling like the Gracie's back in the day.

Don't get me wrong MMA is a dang effective Art for the people who put the time and effort into it, all I am saying is that in the Octagon with the gloves on and the rules in place it gains an advantage over other arts because MMA was designed with those rules in mind. I am actually struggling to understand why this idea is controversial tbh.

Rules and Regulations - Unified Rules and Other MMA Regulations

 

[drop bear]

Well in my experience, people who really train, fight like they train. The MMA trainers in my area train competition MMA so no eye gouging, just like in the octagon. That was also what I and Hanzou were talking about specifically, what about being in the Octagon limits an art. I just made an "I can't do this in the Octagon BUT I can do it on the street" argument.

So we are back to the system and not the individual.

Ok. People fight how they train. Does that mean you do simulated eye gouges in the street or do you do real eye gouges in the class room.

Another classic paradox again.