Wing Chun vs MMA

[Hanzou]

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

They can work, but not in the context you originally applied them, which was against a martial artist skilled in grappling aka a Mixed Martial Artist.

Remember, your original premise here wasn't your personal street fighting prowess against random "MMA guys", but that the reason WC is absent in MMA is because they're not allowed to fight dirty.

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 is more room to maneuver and people of other Arts don't have to worry about the rules the scales get better 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). All I am saying is that under those circumstances the MMA guy no longer has an environmental (for lack of a better term) advantage. On the street it will come down to who is the better fighter end of story.

Keep in mind that NHBs have been around for decades, and several have had minimal rulesets. The original UFCs were such contests, and the styles that dominated those contests are still mainstays in the sport today.

 

[drop bear]

Wrong, what I am saying is this. Since Homo Sapien has walked the earth our two arms and two legs can only move in so many ways.

Do you honestly think that miraculously in the 20th century, with the gun rules the day, that thousands of years of unarmed combat can be supplanted?

I am sorry but that simply beggars logic. Basically you are saying "martial arts were in suspended animation for hundreds of years UNTIL MMA was born in my lifetime"

Do you see how arrogant that sounds? That thousands of years of combat evolution stops....until one in our lifetime is born?

It is like we are having different conversions.

Ok. Fine the argument you are imaging we are having.

I can see mma work because they have a vehicle called the UFC that allows me to see it work. This allows me a consistant measure of performance with the most variables.

It has been the only recorded example of a multi style competition that has attracted top martial artists.from around the world. So I can remove the rationalisations ,stories and excuses that martial arts make about their own superiority and see for my self what works.

We have never had access to this sort of information before and it is arrogant to ignore it.

So to say martial arts had hit a peak of performance is a fair comment that is not arrogant at all. If you consider the refinement of martial arts is based not on the time spent doing it but the numbers of practitioners combining to create it. Then we can look at mma as a great evolutionary step forwards.

We are talking about a martial arts competition that 2 million people watched.

I have been around. i saw when kickboxing and muay thai created the great leap forwards in striking. It changed the whole landscape of martial arts.

I remember when you couldn't get gloves that you could train stand up and grappling at all well. (those horrible bruce lee things dont count)

These are progressions we just did not have a thousand years ago.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Now MMA has tried to combine the best of many different arts BUT when it is taugh it is taught with MMA rules in mind.

You should train 2 different set of techniques. One that you use in friendly sport and one that you use in "unfriendly challenge".

The question is

- if a MMA guy also trains illegal techniques (such as hit on the back of the head, fingers across eyes, ...),
- does a WC guy also train sport techniques (such as jab, cross, side kick, roundhouse kick, shoulder lock, elbow lock, hip throw, single leg, side mount, leg bar, ...)?

IMO, the issue is most MMA guys will train a full set of the fighting tools.

such as:

- jab, cross, uppercut, hook, ...
- front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, leg block, single leg, double legs, ...
- full mount, side mount, arm bar, leg bar, ...

But most of the WC guys will only train a s subset of those tools.

 

[Juany118]

You should train 2 different set of techniques. One that you use in friendly sport and one that you use in "unfriendly challenge".

The question is

- if a MMA guy also trains illegal techniques (such as hit on the back of the head, fingers across eyes, ...),
- does a WC guy also train sport techniques (such as jab, cross, side kick, roundhouse kick, shoulder lock, elbow lock, hip throw, single leg, side mount, leg bar, ...)?

IMO, the issue is most MMA guys will train a full set of the fighting tools.

such as:

- jab, cross, uppercut, hook, ...
- front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, leg block, single leg, double legs, ...
- full mount, side mount, arm bar, leg bar, ...

But most of the WC guys will only train a s subset of those tools.

Well first a lot of WC guys mix in other arts like say Kali I think the above misses a point. How Martial Arts evolve. Martial Arts, including MMA, evolve based on the environment they find themselves being born and growing in, and also account for the physical attributes of those helping to create/perfect them. I think this is missed.

Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu. It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons. Punching an armed and armored opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs. The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind and developed defenses against multiple avenues of attack in that context. FMA has angles of attack whose original purpose was for a blade to get around a Spanish breast plate. You have striking arts designed for smaller people to be able to take on larger people. For that to happen you have to move brutally, no gloves to soften the blow and also attack weak points.

This applies to almost all traditional MAs. Now the problem arises when you try to take these MAs out of that original context. You put an art designed for the battle field and tell the art that used small joint manipulation to disable a hand or a thrust to the eye to take down a bigger attacker "you can't do that" the art will be handicapped. As these arts evolved without those rules, MMA evolved into what we see today because they existed.

If you are going to study Martial Arts it should be because it suits your purposes. I do what you say, I actually study practice 3 techniques but I have practical reasons for doing so. I studied, and still practice, certain Aikido techniques because they are "softer" than many arts but still control and I don't want to injure a mental health patient and right out of the gate I don't want to be injuring suspects. I study WC along side Inosanto Kali now. Kali makes me better with one of my tools, I have also always felt the best way to defend against weapons is to know how to use them and every encounter in a home I face the potential of a knife, a stick what have you. Both of the later help because if the "soft" methods don't work and my tools either fail or are unavailable I need to go hard straight up, eliminate the threat ASAP. Now I lucked out, my teacher teacher WC and Kali in the same class. If he only taught Kali that would work for my purposes so I would likely only take that. It has the striking, the grappling, ground fighting and weapons.
That said most arts have defenses against the other arts. That said in studying two arts at the same time I have been able to see "hey WC can do this but Kali can counter it if applied correctly. Kali can do that and WC has a counter to it as well. There is no special sauce." I would be fully confident, using either in unarmed combat against anyone. Don't know in armed combat, I haven't gotten feel enough into WC to be able to say whether the weapons use is matched. That is basically where I am coming from here.

 

[Juany118]

It is like we are having different conversions.

Ok. Fine the argument you are imaging we are having.

I can see mma work because they have a vehicle called the UFC that allows me to see it work. This allows me a consistant measure of performance with the most variables.

It has been the only recorded example of a multi style competition that has attracted top martial artists.from around the world. So I can remove the rationalisations ,stories and excuses that martial arts make about their own superiority and see for my self what works.

We have never had access to this sort of information before and it is arrogant to ignore it.

So to say martial arts had hit a peak of performance is a fair comment that is not arrogant at all. If you consider the refinement of martial arts is based not on the time spent doing it but the numbers of practitioners combining to create it. Then we can look at mma as a great evolutionary step forwards.

We are talking about a martial arts competition that 2 million people watched.

I have been around. i saw when kickboxing and muay thai created the great leap forwards in striking. It changed the whole landscape of martial arts.

I remember when you couldn't get gloves that you could train stand up and grappling at all well. (those horrible bruce lee things dont count)

These are progressions we just did not have a thousand years ago.

First I agree the MA always evolve, they have for thousands of years. The thing is in all those thousands of year, ultimately, no art has proven to be superior to another, in and of itself because of the human equation.

MMA, at least imo, used to be exactly what you speak of, but in reality not so much now. MMA used to refer to a venue, not an Art. The introduction of weight classes, limited length rounds, gloves, fouls for hitting specific targets and techniques, all of this has slowly overtime made MMA basically an art unto itself. This, again just my opinion, has made the Martial Art vs Martial Art reputation of MMA a thing largely of the past.

Now you may see a specific art noted as where they started to learn their striking or grappling from, but in the end we see, largely, the same strikes and take downs etc. Clearly their is different preferences as to strike more/grapple more, skill in technique application, but it's not like it was before the rules were instituted.

As I have said through, inside that Octagon if you dont MMA, I wish ya luck but betting on the other guy. However saying that because that is how it works in the Octagon does not say that is how it will work on the street, because once you throw out the rules you have too many variables to account for.

Again I do NOT say that MMA is worse on the street than other arts, I just say that MMA, as we know it today, has evolved in a specific environment and that to say it's superiority in that specific environment means it will be superior outside of that specific environment is flawed logic. Many a martial art, even when created in the same environment as others with the intent of being "superior" has failed to prove it is better. It is simply impossible to do so because of the countless variables that suddenly cascade in a fight where there are no rules.

 

[Juany118]

They can work, but not in the context you originally applied them, which was against a martial artist skilled in grappling aka a Mixed Martial Artist.

Remember, your original premise here wasn't your personal street fighting prowess against random "MMA guys", but that the reason WC is absent in MMA is because they're not allowed to fight dirty.




Keep in mind that NHBs have been around for decades, and several have had minimal rulesets. The original UFCs were such contests, and the styles that dominated those contests are still mainstays in the sport today.

Oh I will never say that every technique always works. My actual premise throughout here is that, on the street, there are simply to many variables to say one MA is superior to another, so I would never claim something that has worked for me against person A will definitely succeed against person B, i will only say that it has work and so CAN work against other people BUT the use of the word "can" implies the possibility of failure as well.

The thing about WC and why I like supplementing it with Inosanto Kali, is that WC is very much a MA where you have to be willing to commit to going all in with offensive brutality. The defenses are basically designed to deflect so you can either A) open, almost like a wedge, the enemy's center, or B) allow you to get to the opponent's blind side fast enough that you are striking before he adapts. If you can't commit to preemptive action, it's likely not the art for you. I can't always legally justify such preemptive action so I can't always use WC in the way it is fully intended.

The only reason I ended up in the one scenario I described is because I was initially preoccupied with another subject. If I hadn't heard the chair get shoved out of the way I would not have even been facing that take down. That situation, imo, while I came out on top, was actually a tactical failure on my part. If however I was facing that guy, the minute he started moving towards me aggressively I would have been justified in going on the offensive, and who knows, he may never have even gotten down to my legs.

 

[drop bear]

First I agree the MA always evolve, they have for thousands of years. The thing is in all those thousands of year, ultimately, no art has proven to be superior to another, in and of itself because of the human equation.

MMA, at least imo, used to be exactly what you speak of, but in reality not so much now. MMA used to refer to a venue, not an Art. The introduction of weight classes, limited length rounds, gloves, fouls for hitting specific targets and techniques, all of this has slowly overtime made MMA basically an art unto itself. This, again just my opinion, has made the Martial Art vs Martial Art reputation of MMA a thing largely of the past.

Now you may see a specific art noted as where they started to learn their striking or grappling from, but in the end we see, largely, the same strikes and take downs etc. Clearly their is different preferences as to strike more/grapple more, skill in technique application, but it's not like it was before the rules were instituted.

As I have said through, inside that Octagon if you dont MMA, I wish ya luck but betting on the other guy. However saying that because that is how it works in the Octagon does not say that is how it will work on the street, because once you throw out the rules you have too many variables to account for.

Again I do NOT say that MMA is worse on the street than other arts, I just say that MMA, as we know it today, has evolved in a specific environment and that to say it's superiority in that specific environment means it will be superior outside of that specific environment is flawed logic. Many a martial art, even when created in the same environment as others with the intent of being "superior" has failed to prove it is better. It is simply impossible to do so because of the countless variables that suddenly cascade in a fight where there are no rules.

Why dosent the human equation effect the outcome of what happens in the octagon? I mean you suggest you need to know mma to be successful but if the human equation is as you suggest. You actually don't. Learning the trumpet would be fine if you were athletic enough.

Now if you argue that because of the countless variables in a street fight make it impossible to determine what will work and what won't.

Preparing for a street fight using any martial arts should be impossible.

I mean it is not like wing chun covers these variables either. And doesn't work to the same standard when the variables are reduced.

You are suggesting mma is not the be all and end all of fightin. That is correct. But you haven't offered an alternative.

.

 

[Juany118]

Why dosent the human equation effect the outcome of what happens in the octagon? I mean you suggest you need to know mma to be successful but if the human equation is as you suggest. You actually don't. Learning the trumpet would be fine if you were athletic enough.

Now if you argue that because of the countless variables in a street fight make it impossible to determine what will work and what won't.

Preparing for a street fight using any martial arts should be impossible.

I mean it is not like wing chun covers these variables either. And doesn't work to the same standard when the variables are reduced.

You are suggesting mma is not the be all and end all of fightin. That is correct. But you haven't offered an alternative.

.

Asked and answered. It does, the same as the street, MMA v MMA. However if not doing MMA, there are issues because many MA's have counters, to MMA maneuvers that are considered fouls, use tactics that the round system penalizes etc. That's the whole point about environment.

 

[drop bear]

Asked and answered. It does, the same as the street, MMA v MMA. However if not doing MMA, there are issues because many MA's have counters, to MMA maneuvers that are considered fouls, use tactics that the round system penalizes etc. That's the whole point about environment.

Ok. But you have conceded that the counters that do fall within the rules. Dont work as well as counters from a successful mma fighter.

This was your comment that you would not rate in a mma match.

By this the best way to street would be mma and then add non rules tactics. Not have a system that throws out huge elements of fighting like punching kicling and grappling in favor of eyegouges and downward elbows.

 

[Hanzou]

Oh I will never say that every technique always works. My actual premise throughout here is that, on the street, there are simply to many variables to say one MA is superior to another, so I would never claim something that has worked for me against person A will definitely succeed against person B, i will only say that it has work and so CAN work against other people BUT the use of the word "can" implies the possibility of failure as well.

The thing about WC and why I like supplementing it with Inosanto Kali, is that WC is very much a MA where you have to be willing to commit to going all in with offensive brutality. The defenses are basically designed to deflect so you can either A) open, almost like a wedge, the enemy's center, or B) allow you to get to the opponent's blind side fast enough that you are striking before he adapts. If you can't commit to preemptive action, it's likely not the art for you. I can't always legally justify such preemptive action so I can't always use WC in the way it is fully intended.

The only reason I ended up in the one scenario I described is because I was initially preoccupied with another subject. If I hadn't heard the chair get shoved out of the way I would not have even been facing that take down. That situation, imo, while I came out on top, was actually a tactical failure on my part. If however I was facing that guy, the minute he started moving towards me aggressively I would have been justified in going on the offensive, and who knows, he may never have even gotten down to my legs.

Again we're losing sight of the main thrust of your original argument, which is the reason WC is absent from MMA is because dick shots and elbows to the spine are illegal. I want you to really think about that because it is very important to recognize what you're saying here. You're saying that without those moves the entirety of WC is heavily neutralized to the point of near ineffectiveness.

Your argument is akin to saying that a holistic grappling style is ineffective because it enters a competition that bans toe holds and heel hooks. No one would buy that argument.

 

[Juany118]

Ok. But you have conceded that the counters that do fall within the rules. Dont work as well as counters from a successful mma fighter.

This was your comment that you would not rate in a mma match.

By this the best way to street would be mma and then add non rules tactics. Not have a system that throws out huge elements of fighting like punching kicling and grappling in favor of eyegouges and downward elbows.

I never said that non-MMA counters (that are considered fouls) are inferior to those counters in MMA on the street.

As for you last, that has clearly been your opinion throughout, and it might even be true for you personally, I disagree. My entire point throughout has been to say that, when dealing with trained fighters on the street where there is no rule system to limit targets, time, room to maneuver etc, it is the fighter not the art that determines victory vs when you have a system of rules. Under the later the art designed with the rules in mind gains a distinct advantage.

Let's use a more obvious example. Boxing vs Asian Martial Arts. In the boxing ring the boxer has a clear advantage if the Asian style fighter follows those rules. The big gloves will limit the number of hand strikes, they won't be able to use locks, kicking techniques, elbows, knees etc. While not as drastic the same applies when you enter the Octagon

 

[drop bear]

I never said that non-MMA counters (that are considered fouls) are inferior to those counters in MMA on the street.

As for you last, that has clearly been your opinion throughout, and it might even be true for you personally, I disagree. My entire point throughout has been to say that, when dealing with trained fighters on the street where there is no rule system to limit targets, time, room to maneuver etc, it is the fighter not the art that determines victory vs when you have a system of rules. Under the later the art designed with the rules in mind gains a distinct advantage.

Let's use a more obvious example. Boxing vs Asian Martial Arts. In the boxing ring the boxer has a clear advantage if the Asian style fighter follows those rules. The big gloves will limit the number of hand strikes, they won't be able to use locks, kicking techniques, elbows, knees etc. While not as drastic the same applies when you enter the Octagon

You point that it is the individual not the art seems to jump around a lot depending on what point you are trying to make.

I dont think it is a real point. And you cant stay consistent with it.

Boxing has better punching than asian martial arts. This is why in a competition limited to punching boxers. (not the individual) win.

Boxers plus punching equals better. Now asian martial arts may have other elements that boxing does not have. But there they are deficit.

So we add kicks and trapping and locks and what do we get?

Boxing plus kicking plusr trapping plus locks. Not asian martial arts.

 

[Juany118]

Again we're losing sight of the main thrust of your original argument, which is the reason WC is absent from MMA is because dick shots and elbows to the spine are illegal. I want you to really think about that because it is very important to recognize what you're saying here. You're saying that without those moves the entirety of WC is heavily neutralized to the point of near ineffectiveness.

Your argument is akin to saying that a holistic grappling style is ineffective because it enters a competition that bans toe holds and heel hooks. No one would buy that argument.

First... not just WC, but many a traditional Martial Art that is heavily weighted towards striking, because these arts developed to mitigate grappling and avoid/escape a ground game. I only named WC because it was in the OP.

Second as I am referring to more than just WC, it's not just the fouls (which is an extensive list) but the Octagon itself that creates issues and the gloves. Also the round system has an impact.

Now are these traditional arts completely crippled? No, but any competition at the the professional level is all about marginal gains and losses. Now obviously in MAs there isnt a lot of scientifically verifiable data so I will use cycling. A Tour D France cyclist with produce 200-300 watts on a 4 hour stage. The right tires and inflation can save 20 watts, an aero helmet 12 watts, aero road race bike (not time trial bike) 7 watts, aero wheels as much as 50 watts skin suit vs Jersey and bibs, as much as 10-15 watts. Now every company has their own claims for secret sauce that makes their design better BUT they are all designed to do the same thing, beat the other guy.

Individually it doesn't seem like much but in aggregate they make a difference. So now take two cyclists (fighters) who put out the same watts. Have one guy with all of it, take away some of the tools from the other guy, who wins?

The Martial Arts are similar. They were all designed to beat the other guy. They came up with tools based on their own "special sauce" to achieve that goal. They are designed for the practitioner to have access to all of the ingredients in that special sauce. If you don't have access to all of the ingredients, especially at the top level, there is no use in entering that competition if your goal is winning

 

[Hanzou]

First... not just WC, but many a traditional Martial Art that is heavily weighted towards striking, because these arts developed to mitigate grappling and avoid/escape a ground game. I only named WC because it was in the OP.

Well that's not necessarily true. Muay Thai for example is heavily weighted towards striking, is older than most "traditional" martial arts, and does just fine in a MMA environment. In fact, one of the great rivalries in NHB history is the rivalry between Bjj and Muay Thai fighters in Brazil which led to some truly epic fights.

Second as I am referring to more than just WC, it's not just the fouls (which is an extensive list) but the Octagon itself that creates issues and the gloves. Also the round system has an impact.

You do know that there are MMA competitions without gloves and octagons right? Also the original UFCs didn't have rounds, and we still didn't see Kung Fu guys dominate. Some tried of course, but they didn't get very far.

 

[Ironbear24]

Ignore the penis size contest and pick the one you like better.

 

[Juany118]

Well that's not necessarily true. Muay Thai for example is heavily weighted towards striking, is older than most "traditional" martial arts, and does just fine in a MMA environment. In fact, one of the great rivalries in NHB history is the rivalry between Bjj and Muay Thai fighters in Brazil which led to some truly epic fights.

I am focusing only on the MMA in the Octagon obviously. Yes I am aware there is still some "no holds barred" MMA out there that follows the rules of the old school stuff the

You do know that there are MMA competitions without gloves and octagons right? Also the original UFCs didn't have rounds, and we still didn't see Kung Fu guys dominate. Some tried of course, but they didn't get very far.

Well that's not necessarily true. Muay Thai for example is heavily weighted towards striking, is older than most "traditional" martial arts, and does just fine in a MMA environment. In fact, one of the great rivalries in NHB history is the rivalry between Bjj and Muay Thai fighters in Brazil which led to some truly epic fights.



You do know that there are MMA competitions without gloves and octagons right? Also the original UFCs didn't have rounds, and we still didn't see Kung Fu guys dominate. Some tried of course, but they didn't get very far.

I know Thai has more grappling in it, but really bring that up is a strawman because I have made it clear I am not referring to any global issue. Second yes I know there are fighting competitions one could call MMA that don't follow the MMA rules however in the US, for the fight to be considered a sanctioned bout, it follows those rules. Yes I am familiar with the BJJ v Muay Thai rivalry as well.

Finally I NEVER said Kung Fu, or for that manner any Traditional Martial Art would dominate if/when there are no rules. All I have said is that when the environment does not disadvantage any specific art (which consequently provides the other an advantage), it becomes far more a question of simply who is the better practitioner/tactician. So in my argument, NO art would be dominate, particular fighters though because of their natural talent and dedication to their art may though.

 

[Ironbear24]

I know Thai has more grappling in it, but really bring that up is a strawman because I have made it clear I am not referring to any global issue. Second yes I know there are fighting competitions one could call MMA that don't follow the MMA rules however in the US, for the fight to be considered a sanctioned bout, it follows those rules. Yes I am familiar with the BJJ v Muay Thai rivalry as well.

Finally I NEVER said Kung Fu, or for that manner any Traditional Martial Art would dominate if/when there are no rules. All I have said is that when the environment does not disadvantage any specific art (which consequently provides the other an advantage), it becomes far more a question of simply who is the better practitioner/tactician

Save yourself the time. Hanzou cannot be debated with or argued with, if it is not UFC or MMA (UFC rules) he will think it's essentially garbage.

 

[Hanzou]

I know Thai has more grappling in it, but really bring that up is a strawman because I have made it clear I am not referring to any global issue. Second yes I know there are fighting competitions one could call MMA that don't follow the MMA rules however in the US, for the fight to be considered a sanctioned bout, it follows those rules. Yes I am familiar with the BJJ v Muay Thai rivalry as well.

Why does it matter if its US or not? Martial Arts and MMA don't only exist in the US. If the US MMA rules are somehow hindering WC and other traditional arts, why would they be hindered outside the US where those rules don't exist?

Finally I NEVER said Kung Fu, or for that manner any Traditional Martial Art would dominate if/when there are no rules. All I have said is that when the environment does not disadvantage any specific art (which consequently provides the other an advantage), it becomes far more a question of simply who is the better practitioner/tactician. So in my argument, NO art would be dominate, particular fighters though because of their natural talent and dedication to their art may though.

Except for a time grappling dominated MMA, and then it switched to kickboxing once the Bjj genie was out of the bottle. Currently in MMA its more or less a hybrid of both. Thus your analysis is incorrect. If your argument was true, we would have seen at least one Kung Fu exponent emerge in MMA and be somewhat successful. As of now we have seen none. And please note, when I say Kung Fu exponent, I mean someone like Machida who is very clearly utilizing Karate striking and footwork when he fights.

 

[Ironbear24]

Ok hanzou. So what's your point? Is wing chung bad because it is not in UFC? What does its absence have to do with it being a good or bad style?

 

[drop bear]

Ignore the penis size contest and pick the one you like better.

Not really. penis size is when me and hanzou argue bjj vs wrestling.

But that is because both methods work.

In fact plenty of methods work in mma. Especially traditional ones. But if there is no evidence of a method working anywhere. Then you may have a problem.