Wing Chun + what?

[stuff]

I was wondering what would be a good art to go along with Wing Chun. I was thinking maybe Muay Thai or something. Not really use the punches but the kicks for distance fighting if i need to. I dont think i will feel good as a martial artist without having good long range fighting skills. What do you guys think?

kung-fu stuff

[red5angel]

nothing, wingchun has a complete fighting strategy, we dont fight at long range we make them fight at short range.

[Phenix_Eye]

Why is Muay Thai so popular?

[[Censored]]

I dont think i will feel good as a martial artist without having good long range fighting skills. What do you guys think?

I think you should buy a sniper rifle, or some Prozac, and work harder on your Wing Chun skills. :)

[S.Teebas]

I dont think i will feel good as a martial artist without having good long range fighting skills.

Long range??.... you're either in range or out of range.

[anerlich]

I'll break the trend here and try to give you a helpful, non-smarta$$ response.

The roundhouse kick is a versatile and extremely useful kick which may WC strains ignore because it violates WC principles - in the minds of some at least. This is a high-percentage kick when delivered to low or mid level targets.

Any decent Muay Thai school will teach you to deliver this effectively with power and timing. MT training will also make you fit and tough.

My Sifu is one of the better WC exponents in Australia and globally. We practice a full arsenal of kicks (side, round, straight, spinning, jumping, high, low), and supplement our WC with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for effective groundfighting skills, and FMA-based knife and baton training for modern weapon scenarios. Completion of rhe grading curriculum (an exercise which will take most students 25 years plus) will also require proficiency in handgun usage.

If your WC Sifu and Si-hings can't convince you that WC answers all your combat questions, then find something else that fills the gaps. It's all very well to say that WC practitioners make the other guy fight at trapping range, but that only works if your skill at bridging the gap exceeds his at long range. Your attendance at WC classes is not a guarantee of this.

[old jong]

You are lucky enough to study with Augustine Fong!...Why don't you give him a chance to teach you something before you start going crasy with everything else!

[stuff]

I am giving him a chance. I'm not being impatient,I have faith in in Wing Chun. I just wanted to develop some more kicking techniques. Its not like i planned on using MT hand techniques.:)
kung-fu stuff

[fgxpanzerz]

if this were true, then how would you explain everyone's wing Chun being mixed with other things. I can't say everyone. But most wing chun people's wing chun is mixed with a power style like hung gar or choy li fut. If it weren't we'd all be screwed since real power development doesn't begin till you start hitting the wooden man.

[jesper]

Whats wrong with the WT kicks.
Apart from the low roundhouse which I have introduced into my curriculum, WT's arsenal of kicks cover all you need. But you have to train them hard if you want to make them work.

Remember its harder to learn to kick properly, than to learn to strike with your hands. A fact sadly neglected by many practicioners.

As for the "long range fighting". Its right there in the WT tactics, you just need to learn to bridge the gab. practice your footwork, and timing.

[black and blue]

fgxpanzerz wrote: "But most wing chun people's wing chun is mixed with a power style like hung gar or choy li fut. If it weren't we'd all be screwed since real power development doesn't begin till you start hitting the wooden man."

What the F? Maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying unless combined with another 'power style', WC has no power until you progress to the wooden dummy? This makes no sense to me at all.

Duncan-confused-again :(

[S.Teebas]

we'd all be screwed since real power development doesn't begin till you start hitting the wooden man.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

er...... o..kkkkayyy

[kungfu cowboy]

D.amn! I thought it wasn't until you start eating with wooden spoons!:(

[red5angel]

"if this were true, then how would you explain everyone's wing Chun being mixed with other things. I can't say everyone. But most wing chun people's wing chun is mixed with a power style like hung gar or choy li fut. If it weren't we'd all be screwed since real power development doesn't begin till you start hitting the wooden man."

I am not sure what you are talking about here. I have been to a couple of schools and even the schools I didnt necessarily like seemed to be practicing wing chun without much of a mixture.

No offense Anerlich and Stuff but I feel there are only two reasons to add other arts to your wing chun. The first is just an interest in doing other arts, which is fine, unless you are going to teach and mix those arts into your wing chun, and call it wingchun. The second is that you dont have a deep enough understanding of your wingchun and so have to fill the 'gaps' with another art instead of using what you have before you. Wingchun is a simple and yet wonderfully complex art and it has a full and robust fighting strategy that doesnt recquire that you fill in gaps.
My initial commet was not meant to be smart azz, it was a true statement. We dont learn to fight at 'long range' in wing chun becuase it isnt necessary. A TKD guy wants to fight you get in close, a muy thai guy wants to fight you, get in close, another wingchun guy wants to fight you, get in close.
If you practice several arts you spread yourself thin, and you end up trying to fight others on thier own terms. Wingchun is an aggressivley responsive art, not technique based. You can play the if and or game all day long but until you are fighting you have no idea what will work in any given situation and so you learn to adapt at all times. this to me doesnt mean adopting other styles or other techniques,just using your wingchun in any situation that comes along.

[Merryprankster]

On cross training:

Get a base FIRST. Don't try to jump into two or more arts that cover the same territory at the same time. Doing both MT and WC all at once will make your life miserable--probably--unless you are a rare and gifted athlete.

If you are dead set on cross training, do two things that have next to no relationship to each other, like catchwrestling and WC or wrestling and WC or Judo and WC or Sambo and WC---catch my drift? Learning two stand-up striking predominant arts is going to be awfully hard on you--not just from a mechanics perspective, but from a strategy perspective.

But, that's just my opinion :) I more or less agree with Anerlich about the totality of the experience, but I certainly think you need to establish a base of skill in WC, as old jong suggested, before you go looking to add-on.

Caveat: I'm not a WC guy. Cheers.

[red5angel]

Merryprankster you crosstraining baztard! You wont pull them to the darkside of crosstraining, you wont do it!!!!! ;)

[pvwingchun]

Why add another style. One of my kung fu brothers trains in other styles and seems to have an answer to what we are currently working on from one of his other styles. Sifu usually proceeds to show him how WC would handle what he is attempting to do and it is always more direct and effective. In a real life fighting situation you need to be quick and direct. I have kung fu brothers who have trained in styles that have big kicks and they have abandoned them for WC. We sometimes enlist them to use their kicking style to spar against and they are not very effective once the gap is closed and WC is applied.:D

[Merryprankster]

pvwingchun--sounds like your training brother doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. On the other hand, as anerlich pointed out, there's some very real benefits to other styles--you just shouldn't try to mix and match before you understand what's going on--like suggesting an answer from another style when you don't know what the WC answer is.

[fgxpanzerz]

let me restate what I tried to say earlier. Someone told me a story once by a guy. He and Robert Chu were having a discussion about power development in Wing Chun. Robert Chu said that there is power development in the forms of pure wing chun, shifting in chum kiu for example. The other guy disagreed because he said Robert CHu's and everyone elses wing chun was ALREADY "tainted" by another art thereby making it not pure wing chun, if such a thing really exists. So the other guy told Robert Chu(paraprasing ofcourse), "Ok. Train a woman in "pure" wing chun for a few years and then have her come kick my a$$." She still hasn't come to beat his a$$.

I didnt mean mixed like jeet kune do. I meant that wing chun incorporates some things from power styles like lama, choy li fut, or hung gar. If you've only studied wing chun, yor not going to be able to see how wing chun is tainted. Tainted sounds like such a bad word but i'm quoting the guy from the story who didnt mean tainted in a bad sense.

[yuanfen]

Your generalization about most wing chun being "tainted" is just your opinion.And everyone specially on the net has an opinion of some kind.
There is a difference between individualizing wing chun to make it reflexive for oneself and importing other styles into it. There are lots of folks including myself who do just wing chun. Many things about the usage of the human body, mind and spirit are subject matter for many styles. Using a wing chun perspective on these things does not mean tainting the style.
Regarding your comments on women and the art. It is laced with
male chauvinism. You just have not met the right women.
Anerlich is entitled to his opinion and his findings and I respect his views. BUT. Mine are different. The deeper i have gone into wing chun- the more it
reassures me about the well rounded nature of the art and the waste of taking valuable time away from the art to learn some other....the last remark does not exclude caredully observing other arts- time permitting..

[red5angel]

I think your confusion, fgxpanzerz might lie in the fact that chinese arts are still chinese arts. Many of them were designed with the same sorts of principles and methods, and they all come from the same culture. This may give it the illusion that most arts have stole from the others. In many cases this may indeed be true but this is common throughout CMA. You can always point the arrow in any direction. For example, you state that wingchun stole from ChoiLi fut, Hung Gar, etc... what if I said that they stole from Wing Chun? Japanese arts some have some common ideas and principles as well. People often use what works, try to improve up on it, and reapply it. An art must grow, unfotunately most people who make contributions arent doing any good. It is rare when someone comes along and makes a change that sticks and works right without going against the grain. For example, adding Muy Thai might seem like a good idea for wingchun since wingchun is so close combat oriented. But you have to ask yourself why is that? Stuff should be asking him or herself that, why does it need to be added? Wouldnt the people who came up with the system have answered that in the first place? do you really think that after a few short years of studying an art you can make viable changes to it, because you see gaps?
Would you build a fence but leave some of the links or sections out because they arent as important? If the fence isnt complete how does it serve its purpose? If you were the first to build a fence, to keep your sheep from running away, woudl you only build part of fence? Would that make logical sense?

[fa_jing]

Stuff: you see a deficiency in WC kicking, I think maybe you are not an advanced student. Studying under Sifu Fong or another traditional Hong Kong guy, they often don't teach you all about the kicks until you are well versed (up to 5 years, in HK!) in the stances, footwork and punches. This is just one approach, it has it's validity but might not be your preference.

Wing chun has a variety of powerful kicks, and the footwork to deliver them. One good way to get in a kick from a distance, is to use the Exchange Step from the kicking section of Chum Kil. Opening your front foot and kicking from the back leg, is another way to kick from a distance, within the Wing Chun parameters.

I don't know how others train, but when we do punching with stance turning, we fully extend our arm, while our torso faces 100% to the side. This is as long range as you can get with a punch, unless you overreach, and you would lose your balance.

Wing Chun is good for not overextending yourself.

That said, if you want to learn step-behind or skipping footwork, or flashy high kicks, I suggest you study TKD or JKD for 6 months. That's all you'll need to get the basics down--that is, if you instructor is not holding back information. I think that these highly-committed types of motion are no good against a skilled fighter, but they might help you take out several unskilled fighters, or keep you at a distance from someone with brass knuckles, etc.

I myself have studied TKD and currently study some JKD, for the training methods. The only non-WC kick I use, is the low round kick to the knee or thigh. This is good for wearing your opponent down, but might not be the best option in a quick streetfight. Oh yeah, I use knees, too, not sure how that fits into Wing Chun.

-FJ

[yuanfen]

You sound anxious- as far as kicking. IF you pay attention -where
you are learning - you will see the proper way of wing chun kicking- formidable- to be used when you need it. You first have to learn the wing chun platform and how to move and turn with it-
the kicks can go to many directions. Without a good platform-
you will have unstable foundations for kicking and can land on your head or be taken down by someone who senses imbalance.

[stuff]

Thanx alot everyone. I guess I'll rethink things for a while. I'll keep you guys posted on what I do.
gracias,
kung-fu stuff

[anerlich]

So the other guy told Robert Chu(paraprasing ofcourse), "Ok. Train a woman in "pure" wing chun for a few years and then have her come kick my a$$." She still hasn't come to beat his a$$.

This proves nothing. Besides hearsay being inadmissible, do you really think Robert Chu or any other sane instructor is going to train a girl for five years to fight some (unnamed - was he a serious contender or just someone RC met in a bar?) guy he had a difference of opinion with? Seriously? Is any decent MA teacher going to waste his time and use a student in this way just to prove some silly point? And what other style could train a female to compete with a skilled male or another style anyway? Hmmm ... maybe BJJ :)

Most Chinese arts are mongrels anyway. Choy Li Fut was named so because it synthesised the three family styles after which it is named. One account of WC has it distilled by the Five Elders from the best of everything they practised before after the Shaolin Temple was attacked. While legendary, the implication is clear. We wouldn't practice the pole unless Leung Jan had seen its value after fighting Wong Wa Bo.

There ain't no such thing as a pure style.

I agree with Merryprankster. If you need to study >1 style, make them two very different ones. And get solid tech grounding in one first.

I don't agree that practising >1 style will lead you to fight another person's fight. It doesn't follow logically.

Instead of you having one type of fight to try to make the other guy dance to, you now have choices.

If all you do is WC and you meet a better WC guy, goodnight. If all you do is wrestling and you meet a better wrestler, bye bye. As a multistylist you have the options of pulverising the wrestler and taking down and choking out the striker.

Self defense should be like an onion, many layers, not like an egg, one hard shell, which when cracked means all that is left is a gooey mess.


Wingchun is an aggressivley responsive art, not technique based

No offence, but so are most other arts at a high level. BJJ being one example. In Russian MA in particular, the concept of technique is absent and principle is all. Not saying WC is crap, just that you shouldn't assume that it is automatically so much better than everything else just because. To assume that would IMO be complacent to the point of danger.

[anerlich]

I think you are trying to write "Augustine".

I would hope he did. My Sifu once tasked me to make up some sets to illustrate certain principles and develop related attributes. It was a worthwhile exercise which IMO every advanced level student should try.

[Anon]

but he never knew the original so he made up hiss own and said it was from yip man linage... this is what i ve been told. is this true?

[yuanfen]

You just heard wrong. Not untypical of VTAA kind of rumor peddling. I am sure not to peddle the rumor that HFY is a made up system. There are folks who are teaching wing chun who barely got out of the slt stage. In any case- is the name Ho Kam Ming familiar at all to you? Why not ask him sometime what he thinks of Augustine Fong. Fong spent many years with him and stays in touch.I am fairly sure that you are not familiar with the details of Ho Kam Ming's forms or how he approaches teaching or he describes Yip man's method of teaching him. The principles of YM's forms are in Ho's forms and the principles of Ho's forms are also there In Fong's forms. Some details in each case are different. In the making of an artist you dont paint by numbers.
On a particular style- painting, dancing and kung fu you go through an apprenticeship then if you are worth your salt you strike out on your own and benefit from your own additional experiences.Ho has his own signature on his forms and Fong has his on his forms. Some of the drills that Fong did in his Hong Kong days he has them in the forms. When Ho taught- he would teach one side and expect you to work on the mirror image of that section. Fong has both left hand side and right hand side. I will be very happy to have a discusion with on what you think are the concepts involved
in YM/Ho/Fong dummy work,,...if you can hold up your end of the bargain. .Forms are texts- and teachers have their own comments, elaborations and notes on the margin. If you see Moy Yat's first dummy book- of wich I have an autographed copy you will see that Moy Yat's dummy form is similar through about two thirds of the way
of Fong's form. Incidentally and by the way- Yip Man adapted the old buried dummy when he moved to Hong Kong. Why do I see Hung Fa Yi folks with the Yip man dummy? Piggybacking - marketing? bTW you are welcome to sticking to the pure wonders of Hung Fa Yi. You should nit do the Fong forms. Anonymity is a great way to pass on rumors- you should do even better on the VTAA list. Cheers Anon.

[fgxpanzerz]

The guy I'm refering to is a serious contender.

[straight blast]

I can't remember who said not to add two striking arts together and I have to say he (or she :) ) is absolutely right. Especially Muay Thai and Wing Chun. God knows I've had enough problems integrating the two.

Where I train we do a modified version of the roundhouse kick. Different to Muay Thai in that it's not neccesarily a long range weapon (neither I suppose is Muay Thai's roundkick) instead of kicking through the opponent like kicking a soccerball the force is directed up and through the opponent. When I was doing MT one of the favourite things to do was to "roll" the hip in such a way that the shin chopped downwards onto the thigh of the opponent. This way the shin chops up and through as well as striking and really disrupts your balance in a major way.

Anyone else know this one?

[dezhen2001]

Hi straightblast: When i trained Muay Thai before meeting my Sifu that was one of my favourite techniques! It's a very fast and powerful movement and really takes the persons balance.

Actually now i am training with my Sifu, i really wish i hadn't trained in anything before :( I've only been training around 18 months and am still trying to 'unlearn' everything i have done before, so i can use the wing chun principles clearly. I'm starting to get there, but i guess theres no rush...

I would say that mixing striking arts can be very troublesome. For me before, i did Karate, Boxing/MT and Shorinji Kempo, and actually didn't find much trouble swapping between the 2. But WC principles of punching are very different (to me anyway), so i have found some troubles there.
With grappling i'm not so sure. I did Aikido before also (for 5 years), and the footwork and principles are again very different. Actually i was mugged recently, and the Aikido training managed to protect me from harm which is great :)
Of course, no 2 people are the same, so you may have no problem. Just relaying my own thoughts and experiences...

My advice would be to stick with Wing Chun and see the richness that it has to offer. If you have any questions and problems, i'm sure the best thing to do is ask a Sihing or your Sifu :)

good luck with whatever you choose,
david

[12345]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fgxpanzerz
[B]let me restate what I tried to say earlier. Someone told me a story once by a guy. "


Don't all fairytales start this way?

[anerlich]

Don't all fairytales start this way?

Ah, but this is a fairy tale about a serious contender, even though he doesn't have a name.

Maybe he works for the CIA. Or maybe he's wanted by the FBI.

Have we found Osama Bin Laden?:eek:

In any case, serious contender or not, the story proves nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of Wing Chun. It's just a "serious contender's" opinion, and without a name his "seriousness" is just panzer's opinion.

[anerlich]

We do both angled round kicks, including the one where you roll the hip over.

That's three people I've seen so far who say WC have everything you need, but have added the low round kick to it. Basically my original point regarding that kick,

[red5angel]

Anerlich said - "I don't agree that practising >1 style will lead you to fight another person's fight. It doesn't follow logically. "

I probably gave the wrong impression there. What I meant was that you are more apt in general to fight a person on thier terms then on yours. This is a generlizartion and with time and effort this can be broken but normally the more aggressive "dancer" is the lead. With multiple styles especially at different ranges, if he wants to fight long range and you know some long range stuff, you may choose to fight him at long range. Now what if while you were putting time and energy into several styles he was putting time and energy into one? My bet is his ability to do what he wants to do is more refined and he is better capable of delivering his payload. This again is a generalization but I think it is a possibility. I of course am taking this from the direction that you are fighting someone with training., Generally, if you have any sort of consistant training, MMA or not, against your average brawler you have the edge.

"No offence, but so are most other arts at a high level. BJJ being one example. In Russian MA in particular, the concept of technique is absent and principle is all. Not saying WC is crap, just that you shouldn't assume that it is automatically so much better than everything else just because. To assume that would IMO be complacent to the point of danger"

Actually I agree. Most arts are not technique based, but more people then not get obsessed with techniques and dont learn to fight what comes. thats why you see so many of the if and or arguments. I do think the Wing chun encourages you to not get so focused on Wing chun but that of course might just be my experience with it so far. Of course I wouldnt assume that other arts arent good, but I study wing chun because it is best for me.

[dezhen2001]

hmmm... i'm confused :confused: I don't really see the distinction of 'ranges'. The way i've always seen it you're either at the right distance or you're not. If you're not, then you need to work on how to get there (I need a lot of work on it :D). What is one of the reasons chi sau is practised at that certain distance? So you get a natural feel of being in the right space to both attack and defend (?)

Would it not be more constructive to use what you have and apply it against people that use different methods, rather than learn so many things? Why play his game? (something you couldn't know as well as if you had a more concise game of your own?) Of course, i'm no expert, these are just my thoughts at this moment in time...

Also i don't agree with the round kick needing to be added. I trained it in MT and karate as well as shorinji kempo. I agree it's a useful and powerful kick if you do it correctly. Of course i'm nowhere near learning kicking properly yet, but from what i have seen of kicking, WC has all it needs. 'One kick finishes' is a common saying, and used at the right time i can see why :)

david

[fa_jing]

I value getting exposure to other styles. Not just completing against them, but finding out how they work, and seeing if I can modify my fighting tactics to take advantage of a movement or principle. For instance, I don't want to learn Tai Chi, what I want to learn is how to do Tai Chi with my Wing Chun. I want to learn how to do Hung Gar with my Wing Chun. I want to learn how to kickbox with my Wing Chun. I want to learn how to do Hsing-Yi with my wingchun. What I mean is, use the principles of these arts:

Tai Chi - learn to stick, follow, issue.
Hung Gar - learn to destroy limbs, use hard, tense forearms
Kick Box - deal with the restrictions of rules and gloves.
Hsing-Yi - insight on the vertical fist punch, forward stepping, and power delivery.

Let me see if I can explain myself further. I have a natural feel for Wing Chun after 3 years of training. The hand and arm shapes are automatic. I don't want to learn a whole new set of hand shapes and footwork, I don't see the point. Maybe something here, something there, but I'm not trying to completely change my style of fighting. What I want to do, is find out what other arts are doing, then see if I can produce the same effect out of my Wing Chun framework.

So it is like a progression, that leads back to Wing Chun. Kickboxing is a good example, because it's something I'm learning now. I ask myself, can I slap, can I jerk, can I disperse, can I subdue, can I circle, can I ask, can I cut. The shape might not be exactly the same as the WC forms, but the principle is there, the mind is there. And it works.

I'm going to start working out with a Tai Chi guy, same thing. I want to see what this guy can do, then try to do it myself within my framework and with my tools.

P.S. I do recommend expanding your WC framework with a little bit of grappling. When you add this to your WC, you do it out of your Wing Chun. For instance, to perform an arm-lever, you might tan + punch against an incoming straight punch, to shake up the opponent, then go into your arm lever, or step behind for a rear-naked choke, or whatever. This is how my sifu teaches the grappling.

-FJ

[yuanfen]

That's three people I've seen so far who say WC have everything you need, but have added the low round kick to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew, I dont know who the 3 are. I think wc conceptually is as through a sytem as far as i can see. My wc has lots of kicks- including a low "round" instep kick. Not really round and not muay thai kick---no real hip involvement. Not karate- no real waist-hip
involvement. Practiced straight out of YGKYM and its moving derivations.
joy

[red5angel]

Dezhen, I agree, I dont really see ranges so much as ways. I do it the wing chun way, some other might do it the muy thai way. Its commone for people to refer to ranges but I think sometimes it confuses the issue.

Fa_Jing - I see what your saying, sort of. I dont think its a bad thing to study an art, just to mix it. Its a grey area because if you know more then one art arent you going to use both in a fight? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldnt anyway. Studying an art to see how you could work it with your wingchun is not a bad thing in my opinion, but often there can be some confusion and you end up down the path of mixed martial arts. Often people say a technique they like and want to use it.

[Dave Farmer]

Hi Red5

Exactly.

I've never tried to 'learn' another art, but spend a lot of time sparring and 'Exchanging methods' with friends from outside WC.

If you've seen it, or felt it you can have a better handle on how to beat it.

I wouldn't try to out kick a Thai boxer or out grapple a grappler.
That is to play his game
Also,as has been stated above, I don't have the time to 'learn' another system and I'm not good enough to stop practicing the one I have.

IMHO cross training isn't a buffet where you pick and choose bits of each system.

Thats why the Gracies are so good at what they do.
They have learned to use what they have to it's maximum potential.

WC works for me and I'm happy with MY progress.

It's all about the individual not the system.

Regards

Dave F

[dezhen2001]

good post Dave... to me thats the difference between training 'with' some people from other systems and adding to your knoweledge of how YOUR skill works, and actually 'crosstraining'.

well, gotta go :)

david

[fa_jing]

Yes Red5, I don't want to learn another art, just distill other arts and add the principles in. Well, if I could press a button and know some other art, that'd be great, but I'm not going to spend time learning some other forms or anything like that. I'm too busy practicing Wing Chun. Also, obviously I'm not a traditionalists, nor are my goals exactly the same as traditional goals. For instance, I like to participate in low-key sport fighting.


The Round Kick, Thai style - I like it. But what if your in a self-defense situation, and you swing and miss? He moved his leg? Your opponent might step in and attack your back. Or maybe your opponent took the kick, grimaced through the pain, and just kept coming in, and you haven't gotten yoursef off of his line of attack. That's why the kick goes against WC principles, it's overextending yourself. In a sporting situation, it's an acceptable risk, if your in a street-fight against an unskilled opponent, probably still an acceptable risk. Street fight against a skilled opponent - the focus of Wing Chun - not an acceptable risk.
Also, when you restrict kicks to the groin, the round kick becomes a more useful second option. This is a more merciful kick than kicking someone in the groin, and is a good one where you don't really want to hurt the guy.

-FJ

[fa_jing]

Just wanted to adjust my statement regarding the round kick, above: Not the best kick to lead with it a self-defense situation against a mobile opponent. However, if you are already engaged and the opening presents itself, a quick round kick with the front leg against the opponent's thigh or midsection can be a good option. As long as you don't rely on this stopping the fight.

-FJ

[Mckind13]

FGX - nice rumor mongering about Sifu Chu... Maybe if you had a name for yourself in the MA world I would make something up for you. If its true tell me the other teachers name, you’re probably his student though and would lose face if someone wrote or called him asking about the story or you :P

Now to the real post at hand...

Wing Chun is a long-range art, a close range art and a mid range art. It is also a short bridge art and that’s where everyone gets confused. Any art can only strike as far as the practitioners’ bridge will reach, and for power, needs to penetrate to hurt the opponent so a certain distance needs to be obtained. Once we have closed the distance we stay there, other arts move in and out and have to traverse these so imaginary ranges every time they move to strike.

I believe Wing Chun contains a circular kick like a roundhouse or Thai, but not the same. It is in some of the circular stepping and knife forms. Its form and function are different because of WC structure and strategy.

The problem with mixing the MA is that there is usually a dichotomy in strategy. For instance, WCK emphasizes moving in, smothering, pressing, capturing, controlling etc. Bjj strategy is to close in and take the opponent to the ground. How do we reconcile these two strategies?

David

WCK closes

[anerlich]

For instance, WCK emphasizes moving in, smothering, pressing, capturing, controlling etc.

That sounds like a BJJ strategy. And WC has methods of downing your opponent (which actually BJJ didn't have much of until they started borrowing takedowns from wrestling, etc.).

Receive what comes, be it an opportunity to hit or to takedown. Reconciliation!

[dragontounge2]

Wing chun is a good complete system. But I also do white crane hungar for different approaches and kicks. Also grappling arts help

[edward]

you mix wing chun with anything else and you'll never improve

[Rill]

I'm at a loss to understand why you'd want to add another style to your training, especially to fight long range? Why would you want to fight long range, for a start? I for one don't want to stand at a nice range for my opponent to lay some kicks into my side while I do the same to him, I want to move from whatever range I'm at to a range where I can strike the man and finish it. Certainly, use your range to your advantage, but that's not what we're discussing here (yes, I realise that sounds contradictory).

Do you feel that WC doesn't encompass something that would make you a better fighter? Firstly you should think for yourself, and try to answer your question with your own knowledge of WC principles. Then I would suggest that you should look to your Sifu for explanations, and your Sifu's Sifu, and so on, until you find the answer to your question. It will no doubt be in there somewhere.

I can't help but think that Wong Shon Leung with his multitude of beimo wins never needed to add another style, and based on his physical stature, I can't see how anyone else would need to. If something doesn't work for you, or doesn't feel right, then don't give up and declare that it doesn't work, if it's in the system then there's a reason for it. I have to agree with red5angels comments - you only add something if it's purely for interests sake (in which case using it in a real situation is your own gamble), or if your understanding of WC isn't deep enough. Instead of declaring that the style is missing something, try attaining WSL's level of skill and understanding and then ask yourself the question again.


The roundhouse kick is a versatile and extremely useful kick which may WC strains ignore because it violates WC principles - in the minds of some at least.

Yes, in the minds of everyone that understands those principles. A fact isn't going to change just because you ignore it. Practicing various styles of kicks may be useful when you're preparing to deal with those kicks, but spinning or jumping or whatever kick you'd like to do that doesn't move in a straight line will always lose out to my straight line kick. I'm surprised I have to mention this, I always thought it was a given :P

[Anarcho]

I don't see why you need to train Muay Thai if you like the look of the Muay Thai roundhouse. Maybe train long enough to get the basic mechanics of it down, then just work it on the heavy bag and try to incorporate it into your sparring. The bit that you'd be missing by doing this would be how a roundhouse fits in with other Muay Thai techniques in combination, but since you're not going to use those techniques you don't need to worry about that.

[dragontounge2]

You dont only need one style you take the best of each to compansate for others weak points And have your own perception of fighting. Wing chun has very few weaknesses but I also like the advantage of dim mak, and certian throws and grabs.

[anerlich]

A fact isn't going to change just because you ignore it.

That's true. However, opinions are not facts.


that doesn't move in a straight line will always lose out to my straight line kick. I'm surprised I have to mention this, I always thought it was a given :P

In theory or on an internet forum, maybe. In reality, things are not so clear cut. If throw a round kick off the bat, you MAY be able to beat me with a straight kick if we both have similar speed attributes. But when you include combinations, setups and timing, a curve can beat a straight and vice versa. Any boxer knows that THAT's a given.

It's pretty arrogant of you to suggest that only you have a real understanding of Wing Chun principles. It's also arrogant, and dangerous, to suggest that they are the only game in town.

[Merryprankster]

What anerlich said---hooks and uppercuts anybody? Hardly straight punches, but work just fine. Mostly, you don't lead with them, but set them up--or counter with them (shudder as remembering hard right hooks to head....).

Theory is lovely--but real life doesn't follow models. Using models to predict a fight is a lot like using them to predict the weather--useful within certain boundaries, but hardly foolproof.

Note that I am not talking about the violation of WC principles--can't speak to that--just talking to "round" vice "straight" movements.

[old jong]

Uppercuts....Chum Kiu form!
Hooks........Biu Gee form!
The straight line religion is only for the very basic level.Once you have some "mastery" of the defensives and offensives lines,you may add some curves in your arsenal!;) (I love some curves!);)

[anerlich]

What OJ and MP said. The context was a roundhouse kick, but you also have circular leg movements in WC, per the sweeping movements in the dummy sets, stepping, etc.

For most people, a sidekick is faster than a front kick is faster than a roundkick (unlike some, my Sifu has experimental evidence, he measured it with a roomful of students using an Impax bag, and this was the overwheliming norm from rank beginner to elite). To develop full power in a sidekick, you need to fully extend the hips and face the supporting foot away from the target. For a moment, you have taken your centreline away from the opponent. Does this violate WC principles? That's the way my sifu does it. Also the way TST's student Jim Fung does it too, judging from the photo that used to open his web page.

If you're in a position to launch a front or side kick when an adversary throws a roundhouse kick, assuming your response time is fast enough (not a given), you may be able to kick him fist. But if he's smart, he's only going to attack that way when you're NOT in a position to counter kick. e.g. when you're weighted on your front leg, when you're up on one leg because he's sidestepped one of your lightning straight kicks, etc.

Mechanical efficiency does not alway translate into combat effectiveness. The straight kick or punch might be faster (but only if you are good at it - that is hardly a given), but the roundhouse kick or hook has a greater margin for error because of its trajectory and generally speaking is harder to evade.

To paraphrase MP, reality has a way of stomping all over theories and models. With > 1 model, you have a greater chance of approximating reality, but it needs to be remembered that a map is not the terrain.

[S.Teebas]

Mechanical efficiency does not alway translate into combat effectiveness.


..true, but its a good place to start.

[Merryprankster]

So long as it doesn't rule the roost.

[yuanfen]

Wing chun has very few weaknesses but I also like the advantage of dim mak, and certian throws and grabs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Advantage"? Those are there in wing chun if you keep developing your wing chun with proper instruction.

:)

[fa_jing]

Rill brought up Wong Shun Leung. Of course, WSL has stated very positive things about WC, it is a perfect art and such. But, remember that he LEARNED MUY THAI and competed in MT boughts? That he was a Muy Thai judge in Hong Kong? That during a challenge match, he finished off his downed opponent with a knee to the head, and some WC elders were criticizing him for using a non-classical technique? And his response was something like, the technique that works is the right technique to use?

Not that you have to add anything to classical Wing Chun. Just that, many have before, even Yip Man students, with decent to good results, so don't feel so superior for sticking to the classical interpretation. This is NOT directed at all of you, just the close-minded.

-FJ

[yuanfen]

The WSL example is an application of wing chun not muy thai- where on the former the application involves taking the simplest route as he did. It is not an example of cross training. Wing chun is not dogmatic in its applications. The soundness and completeness of wing chun is in its distinctive structure, principles of motion, tming, mind set and principles of strategy. WSL was pointing towards non dogmatism and was not arguing for mixing other martial arts. Muy Thai does not have a monopoly on knees, nor boxing on fists, nor grappling on controls etc.
Chi sao BTW was pretty important to WSL.
Unfortubately, I see a decline in interest in continued devlopment of chi sao timing skills- which results in "defenses against..." you can fill in the blanks... a left jab, a hook, a grappler, a judoka.
In a real situation ones trained reflexes operating forma clear paradigm
takes over. there isnt time to analyse---this is a jab, that is a roundhouse.... and bringing out the counter from the tool box.!!

[vingtsunstudent]

WSL learnt muay thai & competed in muay thai bouts.
well that is news to me.
vts

[S.Teebas]

So long as it doesn't rule the roost.

You have to learn the rules before you can break them.

[anerlich]

Mechanical efficiency *is* a good place to start.

What is important is recognising that the end is combat effectiveness (isn't it?), and mechanical efficiency is a means to that end, not the end in itself.

But mechanical efficiency is not all about straight lines. Watch Mike Tyson's hooks and uppercuts from his early title fights if you want to see horrifyingly effective examples of mechanical efficiency.

Economy of movement is affective also, but WC hardly has the frachise on that either. The old boxing epigram, "miss by an inch, miss by a mile" is also all about economy of movement. Spend a few minutes grappling with someone a little better than you and you'll find out how important it is not to overextend, thrash about, or waste energy.

[LiteBlu]

Since you are already doing a stand up martial art , you should be looking to cross train into ground fighting. Something like BJJ or submission wrestling. Remember, any joker that tells you that you don't need groundfighting because you can't be taken to the ground or that wing chun (or any other stand up martial art) is enough for groundfighting, is purely delusional. Cross training is the key. Train for stand up accordingly (wing chun, muay thai, boxing etc..) and train for groundfighting accordingly (BJJ, sub wrestling, etc...). Anyone that tells you only one or the other is enough to turn you into a complete fighter is shooting lazers out of his ass just like astroboy.

[LiteBlu]

Edward said: "you mix wing chun with anything else and you'll never improve"


Lol at Edward and his narrow mindedness. LMFAO.

[Rill]

That's true. However, opinions are not facts.
Well, perhaps if you'd like to explain how a roundhouse kick utilises WC principles, then I'll take your word for it. I'm rather curious to know how you're managing to get this kick of yours to either follow extremely advanced principles from Biu Gee, or get it to move in a straight line. Myself, I'd be thinking it's a fact that your roundhouse kick is not utilising the most efficient path from A to B, and hence is breaking WC principles. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.


If throw a round kick off the bat, you MAY be able to beat me with a straight kick if we both have similar speed attributes.

May? May?? Without going into too much maths, plot two points on opposite sides of a circle, and draw a line through the centre connecting them. This is your straight line kick, with a distance equal to the diameter of the circle. Then trace a semi-circle to represent the path of a turning kick between both points. This is half the circumference, or (pi X d)/2. With a unit radius circle, you're looking at a diameter of 2 for my straight line kick, versus a distance of pi for your turning kick (yeah, yeah.. so it may be less or more depending on the arc of your kick.. this is just a typical example). What all this means, is that your kick can be a third of the way through its path before I move to deal with it (assuming similar speeds). If we move at the same time, or I move before you hit that one third distance, you're mine. You can make all sorts of interpretations about varying speeds too, but I don't want to get too complicated. The bottom line is, your kick that does not follow a straight line will lose to my straight line kick (and like I'm gonna stand there while you throw a kick at me, sheesh.. I'm gonna be doing my own thing and be moving forward anyway).

In regards to combinations and setting it up, I'm curious to know what the heck I'm doing while you're setting it up? I guess you're under the impression I'm not moving forward to hit you in the head, and instead sitting back and trying to outkick you. Personally, I'm more inclined to move in, deal with the kick with my legs if it needs it, or otherwise take care of it with my hands (a la single or double garn sau).


It's pretty arrogant of you to suggest that only you have a real understanding of Wing Chun principles.
No, I'm saying that anyone with a high school knowledge of physics, and a teacher that knows and understands WC principles will tell you exactly what I just did. Of course, if you've found a way to make a turning kick move from A to B faster than a straight line, contact NASA, because I think they're wanting to send people to other galaxies without having to move in straight lines.

Actually, if I was to be arrogant, I'd get on a MA forum and declare that my Sifu has a kicking arsenal better than 98% of black belt TKD's, and that he is one of the best WC exponents in Australia and the world.


The straight line religion is only for the very basic level.Once you have some "mastery" of the defensives and offensives lines,you may add some curves in your arsenal!
Hah! Yeah, perhaps if you define basic as 'not as good in a fight as Wong Shon Leung', or 'not as good at Sil Lim Tao as Tsui Seung Tin'. Even then, does it mean you don't have to move in a straight line because you CAN move in a curve? You're still not going to go from A to B as fast as a straight line. Certainly, as long as you're applying the correct principles for a given situation then you can move in a curve, but watching someone do an 'uppercut' in Chum Kiu, or a 'hook punch' in Biu Gee does not mean that they're actually doing it, nor that you should add other variations of these movements without a proper understanding of the principles involved.


To develop full power in a sidekick, you need to fully extend the hips and face the supporting foot away from the target. For a moment, you have taken your centreline away from the opponent. Does this violate WC principles?
Correct, your feet should line up when you kick. If you're to the side of someone, then no, this doesn't violate principles, unless you're under the impression that your centreline extends from your centre and only ever points in the direction you're facing - in which case I'd say that your understanding of centreline is lacking. You're still moving on a direct line between you and your opponent, following principles. Of course, if you're talking about facing someone and then turning side on to kick them, then you're a fool for trying it, and yes, your centreline in terms of which way you're facing would be taken away. However if you're still moving your strike along a straight line between you and your opponent, then you're still moving along the centreline between you and your opponent and following principles.


But if he's smart, he's only going to attack that way when you're NOT in a position to counter kick. e.g. when you're weighted on your front leg, when you're up on one leg because he's sidestepped one of your lightning straight kicks, etc.
Since your weight (for my lineage, at least) is always split 50/50, my weight never moves to my front leg. As for sidestepping one of my kicks, a kick is just a big shift - if I don't hit with it then I don't care, because you're going to have my hands in your face before my foot is back on the ground.


roundhouse kick or hook has a greater margin for error because of its trajectory and generally speaking is harder to evade.
Evade? Why do I want to evade it? I'll deal with it, preferably with my own legs, but arms if need be, and then hit you. I'm not going to try and jump out of the road of it.


Remember, any joker that tells you that you don't need groundfighting because you can't be taken to the ground or that wing chun (or any other stand up martial art) is enough for groundfighting, is purely delusional. ... Anyone that tells you only one or the other is enough to turn you into a complete fighter is shooting lazers out of his ass just like astroboy.
I'm sure there's been threads on this previously, but in a nutshell - anyone who thinks that the laws of physics don't apply because you're on your stomach/back, is purely delusional. Are you seriously trying to tell me that grappling and wrestling wasn't around in China since WC was formed, and hence wasn't considered by Yip Man and WSL and others, that they haven't considered that possibly we could use it? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Once again, what it comes down to is a lack of understanding of WC principles that leads to alternative methods being introduced by people that think they know more than they do.

And leave Astroboy out of this, you know he'd kick all our asses ;)

[Merryprankster]

Rill, fighting is as much art as science. I won't bother with the groundfighting comment. Give me a 20 year WC man and a 2 year BJJ man, and have them already on the ground in some sort of situation, and I know EXACTLY who I'll pick. Stand them up, and I know who I'm picking too.

[red5angel]

LiteBlu - so what you are saying is that for each range you want to learn to fight in you have to learn a new art?
hmmmmmm........ interesting.

[dragontounge2]

Well who would you pick:confused: (BJJ I KNEW IT):p

[LiteBlu]

What I'm saying is that you can cross train in another art if the current art your training in doesn't cover a certain range in a high degree of emphasis.

You don't have to learn the whole art. But be familiar with it to escape from bad positions.

Since wing chun (or any other striking art) is stand up, then cross train in groundfighting (BJJ, wrestling, Kozen Judo, etc...)

And since BJJ (or any other grappling / groundfighting art) deals with things mainly on the ground, then you'd want to cross train in a stand up striking art (wing chun, muay thai, etc...)

In a one on one unarmed street fight against an untrained opponent, training in one or the other (stand up or groudfighting) should be enough to keep you out of harm's way.

But in a one on one street fight against a cross trained opponent, if your not cross trained yourself (you don't have to fight on the ground, just know how to get out of bad positions and stand up ASAP) then you in for a world of hurt.

[S.Teebas]

MerryPrankster...

You havent met the right WC man. Because if your insuating that a 20yr WC man would loose to a 2 year BJJ man...well i think thats a joke.

If it came down to REAL fight i know who i'd put my money on too!

Just because a persons MAIN art is WC doesn't mean they dont have ground fighting knowledge or have practiced it in the past.

[anerlich]

Teebas,

I think Prankster was agreeing that the WC guy would win the standup fight. But if it started on the ground, I'd agree with Prankster with very few exceptions. If Prankster mightn't have met the right WC man, he could well have met a lot of wrong ones.


Just because a persons MAIN art is WC doesn't mean they dont have ground fighting knowledge or have practiced it in the past.

I'm glad your not a purist. Personally I think most WC guys know sweet FA about groundfighting unless they've trained with specialists. Your "person" is the exception rather than the rule.

The situation is hypothetical anyway. Drop it.

[Rill]

You don't have to learn the whole art. But be familiar with it to escape from bad positions.

Yes, that way when you're taken to ground and you decide to use your newfound BJJ skills, the guy who's just dropped you is going to be all over you because it never occurred to you that he may be better trained in groundfighting than you. This is not a game of 'Simon Says', and it's been said before that trying to outgrapple a grappler is useless. Try using the WC principles you've learned instead, and you might get somewhere.


The situation is hypothetical anyway. Drop it.
Ha, ha, that's a good one - telling people on a public forum not to talk about something. Yes, the discussion of 'what I'd do if some grappler came at me and I didn't manage to hit him in the head before/if he took me down' is hypothetical, but I am still interested in learning how you've managed to integrate various other types of kicks (and punches too, I take it) into your style without breaking WC principles (seriously). Perhaps a discussion on this would help us get back to the original thread topic?

[Merryprankster]

S Teebas--and you're assuming the 2 year BJJ guy didn't thai box for 20 years before he did BJJ.

What Anerlich said. Or would you prefer that I spell it out?

*clears throat*

Assumptions:

WC man has only done WC training and odds are, groundfighting lessons are few and far between.

BJJ man has done only BJJ. And odds are that stand-up lessons were few and far between.

If the fight were standing, then my money is on the guy that has trained standing for 20 years. I'm assuming that in his complete WC training he's learned to stop the takedown decently.

If the fight were ALREADY on the ground my money's on the BJJ guy.

I really don't see what the fuss is about. This is just playing the odds. Who wins? Who knows? Don't like BJJ? Insert Sambo, Catchwrestling or Naban, or even freestyle or greco-roman or Judo. Don't like WC? Insert your choice of primarily stand-up art here.

But I'll play the odds, thanks. Kinda like playing the odds on who is going to attempt to throw first--the Judo guy or the WC guy? You tell me...

They are two ENTIRELY different arenas.

You know what I love most about this place? The way everybody reads into what you say instead of reading what you say. I think ANOTHER quotation from Benjamin Disraeli is appropriate, to paraphrase:

"If you wish to confuse the minds of your opposition, be as frank and honest as possible."

And I'll spell the meaning of this out too since I'm sure it will be misunderstood as well--it's not an insult to his opponent, but a cynical, sarcastic remark about the mistrust of the human mind-- always looking for the sinister, hidden meaning.

Bah.

[yuanfen]

But Disraeli didnt know ground work- stiff Victorian - and he was not always honest with his queen.

[Merryprankster]

True yuan--true.

As far the stiff victorian thing---well, I just don't know. They had some rather interesting sexual practices and fantasies :)

[yuanfen]

They did go to the ground....???

[Merryprankster]

Probably.

Heck they went to the rack, the leather strap and the whip... So why not the ground....

[Axiom]

I have a question for those who believe crosstraining is evil (well, a bad idea at least ;) )

Are you working on the theory that someone will be better off overall in the end after mastering one art than someone who has spent their effort in several arts, or would you say they are better off overall at every point in their training?

The point I am getting at is like a 5 year plan versus a 50 year plan. Not everyone (not me, for instance, or at least I doubt it) is going to be spending all their free time training for many years until they master an art. Some people will stick with it for a few years, and then other commitments will take over, like kids, work, prison (who knows?), whatever.

It seems to me that it's perfectly valid to say that at higher levels of expertise the standup/ground (depending on the art) fighting capability is excellent, but what proportion of practitioners are likely to be able to maintain their training such that they achieve those high levels?

Does someone end up with better self-defence abilities after doing just a few years of crosstraining or just a few years of one (good) art?

[Shadowboxer]

Who else throws knees in WC? I was introduced to the knee early on in training. When I was learning basic phon sao (oi/noi pak and pak/lop fak). These techs flowed into low spade palm to the floating ribs,pie jarn,man ging sao, KNEE,kwai jarn from other side with kwai sut. I am finding kwai sut to be useful against the single/double leg takedown attempts. Any thoughts?

[fa_jing]

We throw knees, but we throw them Thai - style. I do think it fits right in with your WC combos. I don't know if WC traditionally has knees, I've seen Cheung-Sifu do them in a book, but the one thing I'm aware of is "Peng Tui," which is lifting the knee. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could answer the question?

-FJ

[anerlich]

Since your weight (for my lineage, at least) is always split 50/50, my weight never moves to my front leg.

If you can step, punch with power, or particularly kick without some sort of weight redistribution between your feet, then you're the dude that needs to contact NASA. Weight distribution continually alters as one moves.

Impressive discussion of physics, FWIW, my point with the straight vs round was that there are other variables, namely the difference in reaction and movement speed between the two participants. If A is faster than B, A's roundhouse may be faster than B's straight kick. Also, your scientific discussion involves both participants in a controlled situation, which I think is my point re being able to score with non-straight line techniques in a situation where both participants are following their own agendas, as you so helpfully point out later in your post.

Wing Chun is full of circles - larp sau, huen sau, fut sao, the rear sweep in the dummy sets, garn sau, the figure 8's in the sword form, uppercuts, hooks, various circular stepping techniques, etc. etc. etc. Even a "straight" kick ain't so straight, the foot really moves in an arc, both upwards and from the outside to the centre. Arguably the roundhouse is like a front kick with the leg rotated to horizontal rather than pointed vertically, and the path of the foot is not so different.

A classical WC defense against a round kick to the body: sidestep (or evade, whatever you want to call it) to the inside, trap the leg with Kan sau, flipping the garn arm up to tan to hold it. Palm to the face or shoulder to break the balance, and sweep the supporting leg with the *circular* (note emphasis) osotogari-type move from the dummy sets.

Against a front kick, this time you can shift to the outside and trap the leg the same way. From here the roundhouse kick with the front leg works beautifully - yes you could use a stomp to the knee or the instep kick from the dummy sets, but a roundhouse allows you to take the leg up and out putting you in an excellent position to take kneeride (right there in bil jee) and ground n pound. A circular tech, but I used a circular tech before that was straight WC. So what's wrong?

Dont' want to do that? Feel it makes a travesty of all that is good in WC? Good for you.

Knees: IMO the straight knee is a front kick without the involvement of the quad and lower leg. No WC religious issues there.