Wing Chun vs MMA

[drop bear]

The conversation came about as a response to Hanzou stating:
"Despite the fact that MMA is "sport fighting", sport fighting is quite a bit more applicable to the concepts present in traditional MAs like Wing Chun.

For example, if someone punches or kicks you, is it better that you got punched and kicked consistently in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never sparred?

If someone tries to tackle or wrestle you to the ground, is it better that you learned take down defense in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never dealt with those concepts?

If someone knocks you to the ground and gets on top of you, is it better that you learned how to escape ground positions/learned ground fighting in a MMA gym over a WC gym where they never went over it?"

I agreed mostly with him but what about those MMA gyms that advertised they train MMA but are actually MMA 'Exercise' gyms where they never spar either.

Exept hanzous response came about from a comment that competition is not a yard stick with which to measure fighting ability.

It was then determined an actual yardstick does not exist for practical purposes.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Exept hanzous response came about from a comment that competition is not a yard stick with which to measure fighting ability.

It was then determined an actual yardstick does not exist for practical purposes.

I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is A yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not THE yardstick.

The difference is vital.

 

[Hanzou]

I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is A yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not THE yardstick.

The difference is vital.

While competition is certainly not the only yardstick, it's certainly a better yardstick than pseudo-science, folklore, tall tales, and outmoded concepts.

 

[Spinoza]

Exept hanzous response came about from a comment that competition is not a yard stick with which to measure fighting ability.

It was then determined an actual yardstick does not exist for practical purposes.

I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is A yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not THE yardstick.

The difference is vital.

And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.

 

[Hanzou]

And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.

Judo follows a similar mindset that MMA follows, hence why it's been used by several MMA fighters. We can even go a step further and point out that since Brazilian jiujitsu is a western variation of Judo, Judo is a core aspect of MMA itself.

 

[Steve]

I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is A yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not THE yardstick.

The difference is vital.

This is a great point. What are some other metrics we can use?

 

[Steve]

And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.

People who have trained in crossfit have successfully defended themselves. And people who never trained in anything. And people who train in parkour.

Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow your premise. Both might be effective, but if the sample size is small and without controls, it's really hard to say.

What we can say is that MMA is a very effective way to learn how to fight someone within the structure of competition against committed opponents at full speed. And it's reasonable to presume that these skills are not forgotten when the context changes and rules don't apply. While I can completely agree that a competition orientation could create some bad habits, the bad habits can be overcome also through training. But the skills remain well developed. The wrestler doesn't forget his skills. The judoka can just as easily throw you with your jacket as with a judo Gi. And we know this because it is well demonstrated against committed opponents in a competitive context.

 

[Danny T]

can we also agree that an MMA gym as you describe it is the exception and not the rule?

Yes we can. I didn't proclaim them to be the rule.
I say they are already out there and there are many of them.

 

[Steve]

Yes we can. I didn't proclaim them to be the rule.
I say they are already out there and there are many of them.

Yeah, okay. But since yiu keep bringing it up, what is "many?" Are we talking three? Ten? 1000?

 

[drop bear]

I think the problems arise when people forget that while competition is A yardstick to get some measure of fighting ability, it is not THE yardstick.

The difference is vital.

Yeah. But that kind of works both ways. Quite often the rules fighting get criticised with no alternative offered. Which was the case here.

 

[drop bear]

And problems also arise when people forget that most self defense situations are quite different from a prolonged fight between two experienced martial artists in a regulation tournament. People have used Wing Chun in self defense. People have used MMA in self defense. Both are effective in self defense. Again, I say pick one that works for you and that you can commit to training in. For me, it was neither. I went with Judo instead.

Streetafying your martial arts isn't going to make you punch kick or choke any harder either. You either have solid basics that will work in both the street the gym or the arena or you don't. There are a few styles that don't translate across different environments but most of your basics do.

So OK. If you are a ripping hot sword fighter you could say your skills don't translate to a cage match. And fair enough. But if you have a cross over at all. Then the skills should be transferable.

If you take a boxer with better hand skills and challenge him to a bare knuckle match with eye pokes. The fight will still generally go to the better striker. Not the guy who has trained eye gouge specific.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is a great point. What are some other metrics we can use?

How about actual fighting?
I do not compete any more. I do, sadly, get involved in more physical conflicts than I'd like. A guy threw both a phone and a punch at me this weekend. The phone missed. The punch I moved inside of and blocked his upper arm; it hit, but with no power. He ended up on the floor repeatedly saying "ouch" and "I'm sorry" and "I didn't mean it."
What I did was effective. But I do not compete and have not for years. And what I did would not have been allowed under the rules of most striking art tournies anyway.
But I could still do it, quite effectively, against a man more fit than me and 30 years younger than me. Despite never having done it in competition.

I've done it countless times in forms. But we are told by those who don't understand forms that forms can't be useful.
I've done it many many times with cooperative and moderately resisting students during demos and teaching sessions. But we are told by those who don't understand these tools that demos and moderately resisting partners can't be useful.

Use whatever metric you like. But there are certainly plenty of people who are tired of being told that only ONE metric can possibly be used.

 

[Danny T]

Yeah, okay. But since yiu keep bringing it up, what is "many?" Are we talking three? Ten? 1000?

Well in all honesty I haven't gone out to count nor have I looked into specifically how many organizations are out there certifying MMA workout coaches. I do know of the one UFC Gym I spoke of, one in Biloxi, Ms. that a former student of mine asked me if I had heard anything about because they call themselves a MMA gym that was nothing more than a exercise gym. (I didn't go out to vet that information but I have no reason to not believe my former student). I have told by associates in Spring, Tx. of an MMA club a few blocks from them that is an exercise gym. (again I've not vetted that information). I receive several times a month offers from MMA coaching or training organizations for certification programs to become a certified MMA coach. These programs are exercising programs not MMA coaching. I also get some like MMA Conditioning Coach programs as well. If I am getting these I really don't believe I am the only one. Would a guy like me in a no where town in South La. be the only person getting these? Nah.

 

[Steve]

How about actual fighting?
I do not compete any more. I do, sadly, get involved in more physical conflicts than I'd like. A guy threw both a phone and a punch at me this weekend. The phone missed. The punch I moved inside of and blocked his upper arm; it hit, but with no power. He ended up on the floor repeatedly saying "ouch" and "I'm sorry" and "I didn't mean it."
What I did was effective. But I do not compete and have not for years. And what I did would not have been allowed under the rules of most striking art tournies anyway.
But I could still do it, quite effectively, against a man more fit than me and 30 years younger than me. Despite never having done it in competition.

I've done it countless times in forms. But we are told by those who don't understand forms that forms can't be useful.
I've done it many many times with cooperative and moderately resisting students during demos and teaching sessions. But we are told by those who don't understand these tools that demos and moderately resisting partners can't be useful.

Use whatever metric you like. But there are certainly plenty of people who are tired of being told that only ONE metric can possibly be used.

I can see how actual fighting could be considered a metric for evaluating the effectiveness of training. The issue I see with "actual fighting" as a truly useful metric, however, is that it's not a very good idea to endorse it for each of your trainees. What I mean is, if you do find yourself in a job where you have the opportunity to use these techniques as intended in real life altercations, you're lucky (or maybe unlucky... I don't know).

Point is, there is a distinction between what techniques are being learned and how they are being learned and tested. The question you raise isn't whether TKD CAN be effective. The question is how do we know whether you can use them, or that other guy, or that kid who just got his yellow belt, or that woman over there who has been training for 10 years? You are suggesting that real fights are a metric. I agree. Is it a useful metric? I don't know. I mean, yeah, IF you engage in enough fights. So, in your case, maybe so. But for most people? I don't agree that it's useful. If for no other reason that we (I presume) all agree that getting into fights is a bad idea. We actively discourage the test.

We also have to distinguish between what is being taught and what is being tested. There is a fundamental consistency in a competitive art between what you learn and what you test. In non-competitive arts, the link between the two is often tenuous. If I train in Judo and compete in a judo tournament, I am testing my ability to execute my techniques in the context in which they were intended. If I learn to box and compete in a boxing match, I am also testing my technique in context. Forms, drills, pad work, calisthenics and conditioning are all elements of my training, but in the end, it culminates in feedback and a consistent evaluation of skill.

In a non-competitive art, there is a huge gap between training and testing, which leads to posts like yours above, where the metric that you default to is actually getting into a fight. Which happens to be bad self defense. It's inconsistent. So you test other things. You test on execution of kata. You write essays. You focus on testing abstracts like character and respect. Perhaps you test on a clinical evaluation of technique or light contact sparring. I've seen a lot of belt testing over the years in a variety of arts, and I've not seen any testing that involves getting into real fights.

 

[Phobius]

MMA discussions/comparisons always miss one crucial detail.

MMA gathers all the people willing to fight hard and become masters of an art. If you fear the notion of getting hit and refuse to put yourself in such a position, then you pick traditional martial arts instead. Reason? UFC is how badass people want to dream they are, in reality those unwilling to fight for it will never set foot near MMA gyms. Exception being those health resorts calling themselves MMA gyms without any fighting/sparring.

So where do people go that want to be badass but avoid fighting? Anything that is known for its deadliness, their local Kung Fu or Karate gym. Here we get a problem, there are those gyms that want to make money, they avoid any sparring in fear of losing members (or have selected time for sparring for those that see the need for it). Of course many of these gyms are also interested in attracting members and as such they make the biggest ruckus going to YouTube proclaiming their deadliness and a million reasons of why you can never really fight/spar because you will become so good any sparring could be deadly for your opponent.

This minimum effort gyms where you come to train a couple of hours a week. Feel all deadly and safe in your everyday life. They are the majority of practitioners of traditional martial arts because UFC keep most of them away from MMA.

Those few gyms that still consider being a martial artist a lifetime commitment with pain and little to no glory are out there but for many traditional martial arts they are a clear minority until the next flavour of the year arise. Will this same thing occur for BJJ? Good thing with BJJ, which may also have its disadvantages, is that the art is designed to keep McDojos away. Question is whether or not that will work.

So in truth, people who need to profess an art over another is often nothing more than a YouTube warrior. (A good fighter maybe in real life but way too opinionated to be of much concern)

 

[Chester Wright]

To be a complete fighter you must have understanding of yourself as well as your opponent. Why read only one book in a series when it wont give you the whole story.

 

[Steve]

I'm still curious about others opinions on actual fighting as a useful metric for the evaluating a training program.

Or the disconnect between what non competitive arts teach and what they test.

 

[Jenna]

I'm still curious about others opinions on actual fighting as a useful metric for the evaluating a training program.

Or the disconnect between what non competitive arts teach and what they test.

I think your question is pertinent Steve.. My question back to you: is it really possible to evaluate the effectiveness of any program as an entity when every practitioner can have their own different criteria for the value/effectiveness/success of what they are doing FOR THEM??

The best we can do is measure the effectiveness of any art/program/system FOR ANY GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, right? Is it possible to extrapolate that effectiveness or draw any conclusions across the entire program or system when what qualifies as effective for one participant may not agree with what qualifies as effective for another?? J

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'm still curious about others opinions on actual fighting as a useful metric for the evaluating a training program.

In a non-competitive art, there is a huge gap between training and testing, which leads to posts like yours above, where the metric that you default to is actually getting into a fight. Which happens to be bad self defense.

About the only way you can determine whether a non-competitive art would be effective in a physical self defense situation is to look at the students in the art that have had to use their art to defend themselves and see what the overall results were. the problem with that is if you have enough samples to make a definitive determination then the students of the art are getting into far too many self defense situations to look good for the art.

it would be a bit like crash testing. You can't crash test every car you make because then you would have no cars to sell, you can only test a sample of them and apply the results to the whole.You also can't test every conceivable variation on crashes, you can only test a few types and look at the statistics of real crashes and look at the results.

 

[Steve]

About the only way you can determine whether a non-competitive art would be effective in a physical self defense situation is to look at the students in the art that have had to use their art to defend themselves and see what the overall results were. the problem with that is if you have enough samples to make a definitive determination then the students of the art are getting into far too many self defense situations to look good for the art.

it would be a bit like crash testing. You can't crash test every car you make because then you would have no cars to sell, you can only test a sample of them and apply the results to the whole.You also can't test every conceivable variation on crashes, you can only test a few types and look at the statistics of real crashes and look at the results.

as a metric, this would only be useful if you include a lot more analysis. You have to have some clear criteria established to determine that the martial arts skills were salient to the defense. In other words, did it matter that the person trained in a martial art. You'd also have to include a similar analysis of situations where someone trained in a martial art and didn't successfully defend him/herself.

Crash testing include controls. The circumstances of a crash test are designed to isolate the variable by controlling all other elements. By clearly defining the test, you also clearly define the useful context of the results. In other words, we know that at this speed, with this kind of impact, we see this result. Now we can extrapolate. Truly, this is much more like a competition, where the test provides consistent feedback within a well defined context.

I think your question is pertinent Steve.. My question back to you: is it really possible to evaluate the effectiveness of any program as an entity when every practitioner can have their own different criteria for the value/effectiveness/success of what they are doing FOR THEM??

The best we can do is measure the effectiveness of any art/program/system FOR ANY GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, right? Is it possible to extrapolate that effectiveness or draw any conclusions across the entire program or system when what qualifies as effective for one participant may not agree with what qualifies as effective for another?? J

this is precisely what I'm suggesting, That competition is much more consistent because the tests align with the goals of the instruction. You, as an individual, receive direct feedback in your own individual progress. In a non competitive art, you don't really know because what yiu are receiving feedback on in training is tangentially related to the stated goals of the training. You are being taught to fight or to defend yourself, but are being tested on kata, forms, kumite or what have you.