Wing Chun vs MMA

[Juany118]

Sorry that took forever.

Anyway wing chun principles inView attachment 19920 action.

Yes and as I noted already, 1. Look at his elbow position. 2. He didn't even have time to bring that punch into his centerline to launch it properly since the guy literally "walked" into the punch.

WC still has shoulder rotation, you cant move your fist forward without said rotation, that is basic biomechanics. The difference is that, your elbow is down and as you begin full extension, the punch launches from your centerline. In this case he doesn't even get half of that extension because the opponent was nice enough to dodge his face directly into the punches path as soon as it was launched.

Now, when chain punching, in the interest of speed, your elbows will not come back as far. The key principle is the elbow pointing down so that is more aligned with the fist (from a purely biomechanical point of view.) That's it. Even with jacking back the elbow, as long as elbow position and centerline theory are maintained it is a WC principle, it is simply not advantageous to chain punching, it doesn't have an affect on the acceleration of or mass behind the individual punch.

Every circumstance does not call for chain punching. As a matter of fact, imo some people chain punch when not necessary. Fighting period should be about efficiency and if you can accomplish a goal either by chain punching through defenses, or via a trap and a single punch, so long as it adheres to the basic principles noted above, it is WC. If you go to the AC forum you will actually see an ongoing debate between those of us who see WC as a conceptive art and those who feel there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to WC.

 

[Steve]

First, how is it patronizing to say that if I didn't have the priorities I do I would have chosen a different MA for different reasons? All that says is that the arts I picked are right for ME and that they may not fit your purposes.

Second if you are familiar with how some Martial arts use principles of leverage and the like then why did you say you don't understand how strength can be a greater factor in boxing than Aikido?

As for what you note regarding Demetrius I would say he absolutely used my list. Why?

First he started as a High School wrestler. When you chose a "sport" MA for the purposes of sanctioned competition, the size issue is not a big factor because of the weight classes. So you are left with priority and mindset, the later only if you want to be successful. His priority was so he picks wrestling.

He then chose to compete professionally. He chose MMA. MMA also has weight classes so again, relative size is not a factor. All that mattered was "I want to compete in MMA" and that meant learning MMA. If he would have chosen professional boxing, well then weight classes again and he would have to learn boxing.

It all starts with your priorities though imo, everything else occurrs to one degree or another there after. Examples...

1. If you are looking at Martial Arts as a fitness/confidence builder you don't have to be overly concerned with sizes of others, mind set etc.
2. If you are looking to compete in sanctioned sports matches that have weight classes, size isn't that big a factor (it can be if your weight is on the bubble etc. just speaking in general) but mindset is.
3. If you are looking for self defense, you should consider your size and the chances of you running into an assailant that is larger than you. You may also want to consider if you are going to have ready access to certain basic weapons as force multipliers are always a good thing in a fight.

In the self defense context you should also consider your mindset and personality because, as an example if you aren't comfortable waiting for your opponent to make the first move Aikido is likely not for you. Conversely if you aren't a naturally aggressive person and don't see that as something that you can change, then a self defense style that is largely based on striking or "hard" grappling/ground fighting like BJJ may not be for you.

I know some people may have a point of disagreement on the last bit bit you would be surprised how hard it is to actually get people to be "really" aggressive outside of the training scenario, but it is actually quite hard. The whole point of Army basic training is to, in essence, breakdown the "kid" and then rebuild them into a Soldier who can act with ultimate aggression without thought...as one of the Forum advisers called it "Robo-droid.". Even then with months of 24/7 breaking down and then rebuilding it doesn't always take.

None of this supports your assertion that boxing does not work on larger people. None of this supports your assertion that aikido does work on larger people. In fact, I'd say that competitive weight classes are a terrific training device. Competition allows people to train for results, and efficacy can then be measured against results. Where competitive outlets don't exist in a sport, a lot of mental and verbal yoga is involved in trying to measure efficacy through the process. It's the difference between being able to say, "I can do this because I've done it a thousand times." VS "I think I can do this because I train hard and it has been explained to me thoroughly how my training will translate into real world application." A lack of practical application is what leads people to claim that boxing is ill suited for self defense because the techniques only work well on people who are your own size, and also to suggest that their own, untested skills are actually better suited for the purpose. That, my friend, is dangerously naïve.

And what the hell is hard grappling? How in the heck can you say that BJJ is only for people who are naturally aggressive?

Come on, man. You've dug yourself a very deep hole. My advice to you is to stop digging.

 

[Juany118]

None of this supports your assertion that boxing does not work on larger people. None of this supports your assertion that aikido does work on larger people. In fact, I'd say that competitive weight classes are a terrific training device. Competition allows people to train for results, and efficacy can then be measured against results. Where competitive outlets don't exist in a sport, a lot of mental and verbal yoga is involved in trying to measure efficacy through the process. It's the difference between being able to say, "I can do this because I've done it a thousand times." VS "I think I can do this because I train hard and it has been explained to me thoroughly how my training will translate into real world application." A lack of practical application is what leads people to claim that boxing is ill suited for self defense because the techniques only work well on people who are your own size, and also to suggest that their own, untested skills are actually better suited for the purpose. That, my friend, is dangerously naïve.

And what the hell is hard grappling? How in the heck can you say that BJJ is only for people who are naturally aggressive?

Come on, man. You've dug yourself a very deep hole. My advice to you is to stop digging.

I never said boxing doesn't work on bigger people. What I said was that WC was specifically designed, in part, to allow smaller people to take on bigger opponents, and simply that boxing was not designed with the specific intent in mind. There is clear difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said.

I am pretty much done here because people are reading what they want to read and not what I actually said. If anyone is digging, its certainly not I

 

[drop bear]

I never said boxing doesn't work on bigger people. What I said was that WC was specifically designed, in part, to allow smaller people to take on bigger opponents, and simply that boxing was not designed with the specific intent in mind. There is clear difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said.

I am pretty much done here because people are reading what they want to read and not what I actually said. If anyone is digging, its certainly not I

And you think going toe to toe striking is the best strategy against a bigger guy?

Which is basically centreline theory. And racing into trapping range.

 

[Juany118]

And you think going toe to toe striking is the best strategy against a bigger guy?

Which is basically centreline theory. And racing into trapping range.

Well the question is a bit off imo because when is ever generically "the best strategy" to go into hand to hand combat against a bigger opponent? The best option, imo, is to run. However Martial Arts are designed to fight, to defend yourself for those times when you are forced to fight.

Is it a good idea to use a kicking art and hope you can destroy that knee cap or knock him out before the bigger guy gets you in his sweet spot? Is it a good idea to move in and try to take down the guy and work on his joints in ground fighting? Is WC's method a good idea?

They all have the same weight of weaknesses imo, that boil down to the uncertain factors irl fighting.

A. How big is bigger? As I said there is a limit to size differential that skill and techniques can't make up for.
B. "what is that big guys skill level and level of preparedness". As I said before, equal skill and preparation big guy wins everytime.

Thing is though, when I say "when you have to fight" I really mean HAVE to. No other options, it's defend yourself and maybe win or don't and assure you get pounded into the ground like a law spike. In that circumstance see above regarding the risks.

 

[geezer]

Well the question is a bit off imo because when is ever generically "the best strategy" to go into hand to hand combat against a bigger opponent? The best option, imo, is to run.

You are right on the mark here. History (and pre-history) has shown us that the best way for a good little guy to beat a good big guy is to say screw this hand to hand garbage and use projectile weapons! According to the best current science this is how early modern humans beat neanderthals. Or, if you prefer a biblical perspective, try David and Goliath. A medievalist? Recall Henry V's victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. ...Well, you get the point.

 

[geezer]

And you think going toe to toe striking is the best strategy against a bigger guy?

Which is basically centreline theory. And racing into trapping range.

Good WC doesn't have to go "toe to toe". Against a bigger guy, that's pretty dumb. Like other striking arts, you need to get an angle, preferably to the outside. In Cantonese, the saying is, yau pin yap ching ...go from side to center.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what good boxers also work at ...and in my experience, they usually work harder at it.

 

[Juany118]

You are right on the mark here. History (and pre-history) has shown us that the best way for a good little guy to beat a good big guy is to say screw this hand to hand garbage and use projectile weapons! According to the best current science this is how early modern humans beat neanderthals. Or, if you prefer a biblical perspective, try David and Goliath. A medievalist? Recall Henry V's victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. ...Well, you get the point.

Yep the little guy should use a projectile weapon, if possible, barring that any force multiplier. If none of the above run, if running isn't an option THEN fight hand to hand.

As for Agincourt you have to love how recently ploughed muddy fields in a choke point between woodlands will bring a force the size of France's to a grinding halt, unable to even wield weapons properly due to the density of persons. Does the term "fish in a barrel" sound familiar .

 

[Juany118]

Good WC doesn't have to go "toe to toe". Against a bigger guy, that's pretty dumb. Like other striking arts, you need to get an angle, preferably to the outside. In Cantonese, the saying is, yau pin yap ching ...go from side to center.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what good boxers also work at ...and in my experience, they usually work harder at it.

We call that "fighting on the blind side" in my school. Toe-Toe is just the opening salvo.

As for the last true. I blame that on too many school teaching WC while not also bringing in a real world "combative" aspect. This leads, I think, to students being so concerned about structure and centerline theory that they tunnel vision and stay on one track. They don't realize that you can disrupt the enemies centerline from a flank as well. One of the reasons I chose my school was because they also have the later. My Sifu says "if you aren't taking MAs to learn how to fight, there are plenty of schools for you to attend, here we study the science of fighting."

One thing I have noted with some boxers I have seen fight WC, if they aren't familiar with it, they are doing a lot of stepping back and "resetting" (if the WC person is any good) because they aren't used to someone trying to be constantly that close. In another thread I showed a picture of Mike Tyson punching in the stereotypical boxing stance leaning forward. The shorter range of a WC guy punching can be awkward for not all, but more than a few boxers, but that depends on their style and mindset.