Think Out Loud 2: Alan Orr

[KPM]

Hi Guys!

I've still been thinking and considering my approach to WCK since my previous post. I initially was thinking along these lines: since when you see people sparring with their WCK they seem to almost always resort to a quasi-boxing structure, then why not train WCK with a boxing structural biomechanic or power base?

I've found a better approach...at least for me. I had purchased Alan Orr's series of videos called "Body Structure Sparring" awhile back. I had already watched them a couple of times and picked up some good points. But my overall impression at the time was that it looked too much like boxing (again...the problem with use boxing gloves....everything starts to look like boxing). I also initially thought that his structure was a little sloppy because he didn't keep a good "kim sut" position and seemed to be unconcerned about his foot positioning.

Well...those impressions have changed. I have really been working on using the kua probably for power generation and movement. Some of you may remember my posts in the past on the threads about "short power." So I have recently watched Alan Orr's videos again from a new perspective and am seeing things with new eyes. These tapes don't show forms....or chi sau....or rote drills. They show how to move from the kua, keep good forward pressure, punch with power, and work well at close range (closer than rolling hands range). He shows a very natural way of moving that flows well and does not worry about whether the front foot is angled just so, etc.......

So the better approach, at least for me?....... Not putting WCK hands on a boxing structure or power base.....rather adjusting my WCK structure or power base to work more like the boxing power base works. And these tapes are the ticket! They initially looked like boxing to me because Alan Orr is accomplishing the same things that boxers are good at......hitting hard, hitting rapidly from multiple angles (not just chain punching), keeping a mobile base that allows for smooth footwork in and out when adjusting distance, and totally dominating the opponent's balance to break structure.

I have researched and practiced the older form of western bare-knuckle boxing in the past. What strikes me is that the WCK that Alan Orr is showing on these tapes is closer to the old bare-knuckle boxing style than modern-day boxing is!

Now many of you may be saying...."duh! He's just doing WCK! We're doing everything you just mentioned!" Maybe. But I don't think so. If that was true, when the typical WCK person was sparring, they wouldn't have to resort to that quasi-boxing structure that you see so often.

Now I am not connected with Alan Orr in any way. I've never met him. I just wanted to share my impressions.

Keith

[kung fu fighter]

Hi Keith,
Can you tell us more about your experiences with bare knuckle boxing. What is this system like, I have read somewhere that it incorporated grappling and well as kicking and trappling like movements.

Moderen boxing uses the turtle position as a defense to cover up against multiple punches like mike tyson does as well as angular footwork. Can you tell us what the defense was for this kind of fighting, how you would use your guard in defense, was it similar to the way we use bi-jong in wing chun?

Thanks
Kung fu fighter

[Mr Punch]

1: "From Bare Knuckles to Modern Boxing." Savate section (http://www.savateaustralia.com/index.htm)

2: "Purring"... Articles 2004... how my chi gerk sometimes turns out!!! (http://ejmas.com/jmanly/jmanlyframe.htm)

3: "Gouge and Bite, Pull Hair and Scratch:" Archives 2001 (http://ejmas.com/jmanly/jmanlyframe.htm)

There are a couple of links to bare-knuckle fighting in history for anyone interested. It'll take a bit of reading and it's not for the squeamish but it's worth it. Also try googling some more modern bare-knuckle pugilists like Lenny Maclean and Roy Marsh (at least I think it's Marsh).

I've often thought the same btw; somebody using wing chun as a natural fighting system to augment their natural fighting skills would (should!?) look like something like old pugilism, down to the vertical fist, extended guard, the prevalence of straight punches as mentioned in the first link to prevent taking damage when getting in close with hooks and uppercuts, less hooks and uppercuts for the same reason, not so much ducking around and bobbing up and down cos you don't have huge pillows to protect your head (though of course bobbing and ducking have their times), lots of short low kicks, sweeps and scrapes, slight weighting on the back foot (again look at the old pictures on either of the above sites) etc etc.

[KPM]

Hey Navin!

Can you tell us more about your experiences with bare knuckle boxing. What is this system like, I have read somewhere that it incorporated grappling and well as kicking and trappling like movements.

---The earliest bare knuckle boxing method was heavily influenced by sword-play styles and was often referred to as "fencing with the fists." So the stance and body structure was basically the same as the fencing structure.....facing the opponent in a "sideways" position with the lead arm extended in front and the rear arm close to the body across the chest. The defenses were also very similar to the guards and parries used with a sword. There were motions very much like a pak sau, biu sau, bong sau, and gan sau. The footwork was also much the same as fencing....shuffle forward and shuffle back. The fight was primarily at what you might call "middle range" rather than the "close range" in-fighting you see in modern boxing. There were some simultaneous attack and defence motions, but essentially it was parry and riposte...just like fencing. It relied more on putting one side forward (the strong side) to do most of the parrying and returning (again like fencing) and used the rear hand for power blows. So it was more "one-sided" than WCK. There was some limited grappling.....the "cross-buttock throw" was very much like the standard "hip throw" you see in asian martial arts. The "back-heel" was a foot sweep....and interestingly enough....Alan Orr shows almost the exact same "back-heel" on his videos. There was little to no kicking most of the time. Later on the hand methods of bare knuckle boxing were combined with french kicking methods and savate was born.


Moderen boxing uses the turtle position as a defense to cover up against multiple punches like mike tyson does as well as angular footwork. Can you tell us what the defense was for this kind of fighting, how you would use your guard in defense, was it similar to the way we use bi-jong in wing chun?

---Again, most of the bare knuckle era boxers stood in a "one-sided" or "side on" posture which limited the use of fast multiple punches. If someone moved in to "in fighting" range where it was easier to throw multiple punches, he quickly got thrown to the ground. The guard was used in defense simply by extending it out between you and the opponent like you were holding a sword out in front of you. Often jabs were thrown with a "lunge" and then quickly recovered back to avoid the opponent's counter.

---When the use of gloves came along it started to change things significantly. More rules were imposed that disallowed throws. It became more practical to bring the rear hand forward and assume a more "square on" position so that you had another big fluffy glove to hide behind. The guard became less extended to maximize use of the gloves to cover yourself. A lot of the defensive hand techniques were dropped because they didn't work well with gloves on. Since you couldn't throw someone, more action happened close in so that head and upper body evasive motions became more important (bobbing & weaving). As these things happened there was a shift in the basic body mechanic. It changed from the former "fencing based" mechanic that kept an upright posture with the center of gravity at the pelvis (much like WCK) to more and more of the modern day boxing mechanic that has the center of gravity higher up in the chest or abdomen.

---Now follow along with me in my flight of the imagination. Imagine that gloves and rules never came along and bare knuckle boxing remained the "noble art of defense" that it started as. Imagine that as it evolved from essentially a "fencing" paradigm that it didn't become a sport. Imagine that it kept and developed many of the defensive hand techniques that it started with. It already had something very similar to a bong sau...a pak sau....a gan sau. It already had the concept of simultaneous attack and defense. It already had the concept of a centerline and 4 gates or zones that had to be defended that it took from fencing theory. It already had the vertical punch with a straight arm. Imagine that it realized the value of being able to use both arms as equally as possible and so closed up the stance a bit and brought the rear side more forward. What do you see in your mind's eye? :)

Keith

[kung fu fighter]

Hi Keith,
Excellent post, I found it very informative and it answered alot of my questions regarding old school bare knuckle boxing.

Does anyone have anything else to add?

Thanks again
Kung fu fighter

[Kevin Bell]

I have footage of Roy Shaw and Lenny Maclean and the fights are brutal. Roy won the first of their trilogy of fights and Lenny won the next two. One of the guys in my training class has an uncle by the name of Kevin Paddock, he beat lenny but lost to Roy. All the fights are with gloves though, sure makes for interesting viewing.

[anerlich]

An interesting BKB thread from the Underground forum:

http://www.mma.tv/TUF/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=346835&FID=43&pc=35

The savateaustralia site referenced above is a favorite of mine.

[Mr Punch]

Interesting post, Keith, but with respect, I'm not sure how much pugilism was based on sword-play. Sure there were styles that were but there were many styles that weren't too. Don't forget fencing as such was largely a gentleman's sport when it developed as such, and I would hazard a guess that by the time fencing became more formalised and sportified there were already many established bare-knuckle traditions.

Plus, quite frankly, it doesn't make sense to fight unarmed the saem way as with a three+ foot blade in your hand... and that's speaking as someone who has learned aikido/jutsu for fifteen years, where there is a high level of crossover between hand and sword arts, but there are still significant differences, especially in footwork.

A lot of these older traditions seem based on old wrestling styles; Cornish, Cumberland, Lancashire etc, and certainly had grappling, many of them also specifically had the kind of shin kicking, stamping, scraping, and sweeping as described in the purling article.

As such, they would have had a very square stance to facilitate striking with either limb.

Also, on a bit of a tangent and not so important, if you look at Morris Dancing, and Highland sword dancing, and Irish dancing, which all arguably have martial origins or connections and could be the oldest surviving evidence of a formal Western martial tradition, they all have a lot of short hooking, stamping, reeping and kneeing movements and the dashing in and out that you describe, with a very immobile upper body suggesting keeping balance while grabbing each others' shoulders in a rudimentary clinch a la many wrestling styles' starts to bouts. Morris Dancing doesn't have the stationariness, but cudgels and hankies... but the footwork is a marvel and I would say almost definitely martial.

I'm willing to be persuaded though... do you have any refs to the sword-play spawning bare-knuckle premise? If so, which styles of sword-play, or which swords?

It seems like we came to the same conclusions but from completely different angles! ;) :cool:

Anerlich, I think I got that savate reference from you in the first place ;) . The Journal of Manly Arts is one of my faves too, for history and whatnot.

Kevin; sweet! Didn't know those fights had been recorded! Read an interesting piece on Roy Shaw (he was the one I was thinking of - dunno where I got the name Marsh!) who reckoned the second fight Maclean had given up and Shaw let him have it, and the third time I thought it didn't happen cos Shaw said Maclean said he didn't want any and he was too old...?! I've probably got a bit mixed-up though... I've read things in passing about those two, but I don't have any literature on them.

[Kevin Bell]

Mat, that was the first fight when Roy beat Lenny. In the next two the last one especially lenny done the business on Roy, third fight Roy took about 16 bombs before he went down. Lenny was the younger one i feel Roy was well past his best when he fought (early to mid fourties) he spent most of his twenties and thirties in prison. Some years later on a television show i think Roy challenged Lenny again Roy being in his sixties and Lenny being in his late fourties alledgedly. Both personified the hard man

[KPM]

Hey Mat!

Interesting post, Keith, but with respect, I'm not sure how much pugilism was based on sword-play. Sure there were styles that were but there were many styles that weren't too.

---Sure there were lots of variations as time went on, but if you look at the origins in the 1700's it was largely based on the swordsmanship of the day. The majority of the non-weapons based fighting up until that time had been largely grappling methods. When it came time to develop a striking-based system the main model to look at was striking with weapons.

Don't forget fencing as such was largely a gentleman's sport when it developed as such, and I would hazard a guess that by the time fencing became more formalised and sportified there were already many established bare-knuckle traditions.

---When I said "fencing" I was referring to western swordsmanship with the single-handed blade, not necessarily the "sport" of fencing. It was just easier to state it that way and it still communicated well what the old bare knuckle styles looked like.

Plus, quite frankly, it doesn't make sense to fight unarmed the saem way as with a three+ foot blade in your hand...

---It does if that is the primary model you have to go by or base things upon. If you had started out learning weapons and then decided to develop an empty-hand striking system, wouldn't you start with the basic structure you had learned already? Look at the empty hand methods in the older Filipino Martial Arts. They are largely just extrapolations of the weapons methods.


A lot of these older traditions seem based on old wrestling styles; Cornish, Cumberland, Lancashire etc, and certainly had grappling, many of them also specifically had the kind of shin kicking, stamping, scraping, and sweeping as described in the purling article.

---I disagree. All you have to do is look at the old boxing manuals that are still in existance. All you have to do is look at illustrations of fights from the sports publications of the day.

As such, they would have had a very square stance to facilitate striking with either limb.

---A few did, such as the Mendoza style. But it was the exception and not the rule it seems when you see old illustrations of these guys fighting.

I'm willing to be persuaded though... do you have any refs to the sword-play spawning bare-knuckle premise? If so, which styles of sword-play, or which swords?

---I'd have to look back thru some of the books I have. Look up what you can on a guy named Figg. He was one of the first. It wasn't any one style or sword. It was the "generalized" body structure used with a single-sword in the British methods of the late 1600's and early 1700's, which it turn was related to the French methods. The side-on position using primarily the forward arm, the centerline idea with its 4 quadrants, the shuffling footwork, and the basic parries.


Keith

[Spark]

I haven't done in depth research on the history of boxing lately, so perhaps someone can comment on the accuracy of this,

There is a scene in Gangs of New York with bare knuckle boxing that I am sure had a level of R&D put into it. If I'm not mistaken the fight went to the ground as well.

[aaron baum]

hello guys...my name is aaron baum and i am one of alan orrs students...

thankyou for the comments KPM on the series sifu shot....its like hes said before, you cant really see or feel the difference in the way we use our structure until you delve into it and actually practice it and then the power becomes clear..hopefully!

myself and some of the guys have been competing in amateur nhb this year and myself and a training brother neil have been invited back to the national finals in october...training against grapplers in a more aggressive environment has definitely helped me and so far noone has come close to matching us for power or standup skills...neil even produced the first TKO in the history of the comp which is something considering there are no headshots and each fight is 1 four minute round....

if you go to alanorr.com there are some clips of us...click the Movie download link on the front page....the compatability isnt great on the files so apologies if they dont work...they will in the future...i am going to expand the area on the site to give a run down of each fight etc eventually...

its not an ego thing with the comp...we just want to shout loud that wing chun can work in NHB and spread the word about our art....Full contact fights are lined up for the end of the year so bring it on....

best

aaron

[stricker]

aaron,

awesome, well done on the success so far! have any of you done rules with headshots yet?

also, i've seen vid number 1 of the series. they're a bit expensive for me to buy the whole lot and to be honest although i thought it was good there was little in the first one that i hadn't already seen (medicine ball looked cool tho) and some technical differences etc but is there one where it all gets tied together to really understand where he's coming from and how wing chun fits in in mma sparring?

actually i did have another question there looked like there were some moments where alan was really leaning forward into the other guy and up on his toes. was that the camera angle, or you just do it a little bit, or intentional? is the strategy if it's taken advantage of just to step forward, or???

cheers!

[aaron baum]

there are some fights lined up for the end of the year Full Contact in the US....we train under Eddy Millis and the Shark Tank in LA in grappling and NHB....

Sifu has produced another DVD called NHB Wing Chun...if you go to the site and the link should be on the front page...it covers our theories about ground control and striking using Wing Chun principles and Catch Wrestling etc...

in answer to your question about sifu learning forward...is he using a lan sau energy at the time, as the lan can be used to uproot, or crush and destruct with a pressure that may look like its leaning....just a thought...

best

aaron

[stricker]

cool full vale tudo rules head shots elbows g'n'p the whole shebang. all the best with the fights in the states. it'd be cool to see you guys in action if you do some uk fights your in london theres loads of shows about, extreme fighters at circus tavern and stuff like that.

i wasnt so interested in the wing chun ground dvd as i already do submissions and work thai pads on the ground for that stuff anyway (with my natural wing chun flavour haha) what i was really after was if there was a single best video of the series that put wing chun in context of stand up nhb, what your sifus ideas were and any mods etc for nhb compared to normal wing chun.

ok cool for the answer about leaning i wasnt sure, if i get the time maybe i'll find it and give you a time where in the video i mean but i'm sure its ok.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Sifu (Alan Orr) has produced another DVD called NHB Wing Chun...if you go to the site and the link should be on the front page...it covers our theories about ground control and striking using Wing Chun principles and Catch Wrestling etc..." (Aaron Baum).


....Ha, ha, ha !!! :cool:

Wing Chun that looks a bit like boxing and mixed with Catch Wrestling, you say?

Been doin' that for about 5 years now!

Good show. And give my regards to Alan.

[Alan Orr]

Hi

Just wanted to thank Keith for his reply and feedback on my videos.

Also to just make clear what am I teach is pure Wing Chun as I see it, not Boxing mixed Wing Chun.

Wing Chun is a Chinese Boxing Art already and that is what I am showing. I think as many Wing Chun guys don't sparr and fight in a 'live ' manner it may looks different to what they think Wing Chun is about. Thats fine, we all have our path.

But what I have shown is the need to the correct understanding of Body Structure in order for the art to be functional under tested pressure. This can often become missing if you are not sparring and developing your 'live' skills.

My teacher Robert Chu has always told let function rule over form. That doesn't mean the forms are not important, ( in fact they are key, if the structure of movement is correct) but you must know how to apply yours skills. To that he has always said ' let application be your teacher', that does't mean you don't need to learn from a teacher. it means test it! Then you will learn the deeper ideas of body movement they only comes from doing it.

No need to big debates, I just wanted to thank Keith for his time.

My best

Alan

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good post, Alan...and you're right, no need for big debates.

My approach is slightly different, as I often use some boxing hands and footwork at certain distances, and then at a closer range I kick it into a wing chun engine.

Like Robert Chu correctly says...let application be your teacher.

[sihing]

Good post, Alan...and you're right, no need for big debates.

My approach is slightly different, as I often use some boxing hands and footwork at certain distances, and then at a closer range I kick it into a wing chun engine.

Like Robert Chu correctly says...let application be your teacher.

Without form there is no application, just untrained fighting with no thought or process to it. The same can be said of just theory and no application...Moderation is the key here, both are as important as the other....

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

Without form there is no application, just untrained fighting with no thought or process to it. The same can be said of just theory and no application...Moderation is the key here, both are as important as the other.... James
"Sifu says" theories are meaningless until tested in application against skilled and vigorously resisting opponents........

Theories that you develop on your own from sparring / fighting truly challenging opponents are what matters.

Only then can it be said that both theory & application are as important as the other.

-Lawrence

[sihing]

"Sifu says" theories are meaningless until tested in application against skilled and vigorously resisting opponents........

Theories that you develop on your own from sparring / fighting truly challenging opponents are what matters.

Only then can it be said that both theory & application are as important as the other.

-Lawrence
Who said anything about not putting the theories to the test?? Maybe you are making to many assumptions, the first no no in a fight... Obviously, when learning a Martial Art you have to test it (oh I know people here hate that word, but so what..). The intensity of your training has to increase or else you will have learned nothing in the realm of reality fighting, or effectively being able to use it, this is basic stuff....What does an increase of intensity mean? Well to me it means that I actually have to apply what I have learned against people trying to hit me. plain and simple. How vigorously they attack is up to me, as if I let them to continue to attack me after their initial offense then that is the first mistake. I too can attack them and turn from a defensive attitude to a more offensive attitude, or is that not the way it works in other's WC.

So many times I read on this forum, that if you never get attack by a vigorously attack opponent you have nothing, bla bla bla.... WE all know this already and believe it or not most of us have been through this process, so why do people continue to assume that most of us haven't. Does anyone here know the exact training habits of all the participants on this forum? Nope, so please quit making assumptions, treating us like green horns and reciting basic training practices.

As for "Sifu says" statements, the information has to come from somewhere intially (or maybe most on this forum just figured it out for themselves? If this isn't the case, then you have to admit you needed help or guidance in learning the system properly. This is what "Sifu's" "Coaches", "Mentors" are for), then after the information is absorbed, guess what happens next? It's tested. Not to see if the information is effective or that the information works, but for the fact that the practitioner has to physically learn the material, absorb it into their neuralogical system, subconsious, whatever you want to call it, so it is there for them when needed automatically. This process can take whatever amount of time, and can vary according to the practitioners intensity in training and interest. Again basic stuff here...




James

[martyg]

Without form there is no application, just untrained fighting with no thought or process to it. The same can be said of just theory and no application...Moderation is the key here, both are as important as the other....

James


I think the problem can be that for some, form is their function/application.

Form must be learned to teach function/application as well as concept and principle. However once they are learned, for some form is dictated by application itself with the underlying intent (i.e. tan energy, bong energy, etc.) being previously trained. The actual form/structure gets dictated through the application at this point, since it exists as a concept and intent rather than a position and pose. This is where Alan and I, and the rest of the people in my family come from. That is also what is meant by let function rule over form, let application be your sifu. Of course, one can not do this without initial training in shapes (tan, bong, fuk, etc.) to learn the intent behind them.

[sihing]

Like I said, moderation is the key..You have to have both, but not too much to one extreme. All form makes one a statue...all application makes one without structure, energy, form and a whole bunch of other things important to the process of the whole.

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

after the information is absorbed, guess what happens next? It's tested. Not to see if the information is effective or that the information works, but for the fact that the practitioner has to physically learn the material, absorb it into their neuralogical system, subconsious, whatever you want to call it, so it is there for them when needed automatically. This process can take whatever amount of time, and can vary according to the practitioners intensity in training and interest. Again basic stuff here...
Basics need to be tested in an situation similar to that in which they are expected to be used (i.e.- a realistic combative situation, not just within the confines of a limited, mechanical drill.)

Have you ever watched classical aikidokas test their techniques in the type of randori common in most dojos? -Do you think that a practicioner who only tests his techniques like that is going to be able to make his stuff functional if he gets into a scrap with decent streetfighters?

I'd personally rather have a "crosstrainer" watching my back if I got into a scary street situation, instead of a guy who believes he can actually "test his techniques" outside of an MMA type of sparring environment.

-Lawrence

[lawrenceofidaho]

let function rule over form, let application be your sifu.
Beautiful........ If everyone on the forum did this, AND ALSO SPARRED, there would never again be any disagreement here.

-Lawrence

[sihing]

Basics need to be tested in an situation similar to that in which they are expected to be used (i.e.- a realistic combative situation, not just within the confines of a limited, mechanical drill.)

Have you ever watched classical aikidokas test their techniques in the type of randori common in most dojos? -Do you think that a practicioner who only tests his techniques like that is going to be able to make his stuff functional if he gets into a scrap with decent streetfighters?

I'd personally rather have a "crosstrainer" watching my back if I got into a scary street situation, instead of a guy who believes he can actually "test his techniques" outside of an MMA type of sparring environment.

-Lawrence

Well I've seen a few aikido demos from various sources, and if they remained at the same level of intensity in their training, they would not be as effective as they can be. The intensity has to increase and the randomness of the attacks has to be increased also. In Steven Segal's dojo their randori test for their black belts is completely random, 3 vs. 1 (the one test for the belt), and the 3 attackers can do anything and everything to take down the student testing. More realistic if you ask me. This is similar to the testing that takes place in my kwoon. For our level 10 test 3 Sifu level attackers attack the student being graded with everything from kicks/punches, to grabs chokes, shoots, takedowns, from a standing, sitting, kneeling, on the ground positions, no to mention weapon attacks, all random and unknown to the one being graded. Someone who passes this test is ready for anything and everything (which doesn't necessarily mean they are the meanest, deadliest, or most lethal fighter around, it just means what they have absorbed from the art of WC has made them effective fighters).

James

[martyg]

Beautiful........ If everyone on the forum did this, AND ALSO SPARRED, there would never again be any disagreement here.

-Lawrence


Uhh....we do. ;)