PDA

View Full Version : Pure Wing Chun, Applied Wing Chun



YongChun
09-22-2005, 05:16 PM
I have been to many (maybe all of them) Wing Chun seminars where the great theories of Wing Chun were being discussed. A thought in the minds of some I am sure was “that’s great but what’s that got to do with real modern combat and how does that help me to handle the modern MMA fighter?”

On martial arts forums like this one, there is some animosity between different groups of people because we don’t distinguish clearly where we are coming from. The fighters don't care about the angle of the Tan sau, the circle theory, where you Chi is. The theoreticians don't care about winning in the UFC or kicking a bag 10,000 times.

I think some of the problems would go away if the topics for discussion were clearly categorized as belonging to the realm of Pure Wing Chun or of Applied Wing Chun. Maybe we need two groups? Furthermore, Wing Chun tapes and seminars might be more useful if they were labeled as being Pure Wing Chun, with application in a classroom setting only or of Applied Wing Chun that talks about the real world. For the Applied Wing Chuner or Real Fighter probably most if not all Wing Chun tapes , CD's and DVD's fall short compared to the many MMA media (including much footage of actual combat) that's available to date.

As an analogy, look at mathematics. Pure mathematicians are rarely concerned with how their mathematics applies to the real world. Thus Andrew Wiles spent 7 or 8 years finding a proof to Fermat's famous theorem that two cubes can't make a third cube and so one up the line. This theorem has absolutely no practical use yet the proof employs the most ingenious mathematics ever devised by humans in this Universe. Why did he do that? Because mathematicians have been trying to do that for 350 years and the best of the best failed. The same reason that people climbed Mount Everest. There are other areas of pure mathematics however that do have application in the real world. An example is all the work related to prime numbers (2,3,5,7,11,13 etc.) is useful for keeping our banking information secure. The application of ideas from pure mathematics is applied mathematics.

Likewise in Wing Chun there are many people who are intrigued by the structure and limited application of the Wing Chun system. I would fit the beautiful ideas of Tsui Shan Tin (Chu Shong Tin) in this category where he explains everything in terms of circles and spheres. All his ideas are very good. Yet he doesn't go and fight in UFC or against the Thais or even discusses that subject. I would categorize his discussions as belonging to the area of Pure Wing Chun. In his subject area, he is clearly a Master.

Then there are others who talk about the application of Wing Chun to street combat, to mixed martial arts and to survival in Jail. These people's discussions belong to the area of Applied Wing Chun. In the area of Applied Wing Chun, we have a harder time to agree on who is the master.

If you are a Wing Chun practitioner, then ideas from Pure Wing Chun must necessarily be part of your fighting strategy and tactics. If not then you are not a Wing Chun practitioner but a Mixed Martial Artist with varying degrees of Wing Chun.

I see both groups as having something very relevant and useful to say. Applied arts depend on the pure arts for their methods. Pure arts sometimes come about from problems encountered in the real world. Sometimes pure arts a just mental gymnastic exercises with no perceived purpose yet 100 years later the theory suddenly becomes very applicable to something. In the case of mathematics, Boolean Algebra, which has application in computer design, can be cited as one example of this.

For most of us, computer design is like the pure art. We don't care how or why our computers, TV's, Cell phones etc. work. As long as they work, we are happy. We are in the applied field. Some people in Wing Chun are like that. They could care less about UFC, Pride, and Street combat and yet they are very interested to analyze and talk about Wing Chun. It's rare to see someone at a high level who can be both an expert in the Pure and the applied aspects. At one level down you may find many who can do both. Of course this is not possible to define clearly.


Ray's Blog and Random Thoughts for the Day

Edmund
09-22-2005, 06:01 PM
Is it a martial art or not? It's not good to be a pure theorist.
This isn't the maths world.

People CLAIM all sorts of things are pure. i.e. I'm doing stuff the more correct way.
If it has no practical use, how can they justify it?
If it can work only sometimes when the opponent is a piece of crap, then WHY is it more correct? Because theoretically someone else better 100 years later could make it work?

I disagree that the pure art is the one that's less applicable.
It should be the more applicable one.
You strip off the crap, you get the purer art.

As someone IN the computer design & development industry, I care what it's for. 10% of the effort is in the creation of the design. 90% of the effort is making sure it WILL WORK.

schwarzdragon
09-22-2005, 06:46 PM
I have studied Wing Chun for 3 years. Now, I'm certified to teach it. Before that, I studied Tae Kwon Do for 9 years and Judo for 2 years. I was also trained in hand-to-hand combat during my 10 years as a US Army officer. Never before in my martial arts training have I seen mathmatics used to illustrate a point.

Furthermore, I have a question for you. Are you familiar with the difference between traditional versus modified wing chun? I have studied what I was told was traditional wing chun in the US. My wing chun master told me that many other styles came from the modified wing chun lineage, that excluded the footwork that is needed to avoid the opponent's attack.

Last summer, I was fortunate to train under my Chinese wife's uncle in Indonesia. He lived in a Shaolin monestary from age 4 to 30, when he left to get married. Now, he is 68 years old and has 9 children! Anyway, he is a master of 5 styles of kung fu including wing chun. He easily defeated me at chi sao. He said that my style of wing chun was the modified version and that he practiced the authentic shaolin wing chun. I have many of the training sessions on video tape. Several times, he used me in his seminars as the attacker. I was amazed how such an older gentleman could disable and disarm me without any effort. Even though he spoke no English, I can understand enough bahasa indonesia to know that he joked often about "American kung fu." Mostly, I can understand the universal Cantonese of Wing Chun terminology.

Confucius said, "There is no shame in falling as long as you try to get back up every time you fall."

viper
09-22-2005, 07:44 PM
this is mainly addressed to swzdragon im most interested in ur trainin with a senior shaolin man my question is that many people state the yip mans traditional style differ from the shoalin technique so pherhaps its slightly different to yip man linages i think when it comes to pure or app wing chun they should both be in harmony with each other a agree many get caught up with this is the way it should be but martial arts is situational my sifu says if it works use it he says wing chun should grow many styles now have more em[phasis on completenss and i feel that in order for a chuner to be complete they should look at both sides of the app and pure u need both to be truly masterful and i agree with the statement of to much animosity between wing chun clans wing chun is wing chun people wste there lives talkin and not doin also swazdragon thats awesome u got to train with a man of such caliber really makes a person look twice when lookin at people and thinkn this old lady mite be a wing chun master strange isnt the oldest and weakest muscle wise i assume seem to be the most enlightn as to how to fight wen most think big strong burly men are the only ones i enjoy cn unliky things in martial arts i think its one of it beauties a equalizer.

YongChun
09-23-2005, 12:46 AM
I agree Wing Chun is a martial art. This topic was just to get some other discussion going. Perhaps the Pure Wing Chun (nothing to do with modified vs unmodified or traditional vs modified or William Cheung's method vs Yip Man's other students method) is just stage 1 which leads to stage 2 the practical or applied art. That's not to say the purists can't apply it in the same way that you can't say pure mathematicians can't solve real world problems. Thus some pure dojo (excuse the Japanese) students have applied their art in he street for example (unlikely to win in MMA or tournament competition - unless it's trained).

The story of the true Shaolin Wing Chun beating American Wing Chun, what does that mean? A skilled guy always can beat an unskilled guy. The Shaolin guy won because of what? What can't the American Wing Chun man do that the Indonesian Wing Chun man can do? Just curious.

Ray

YongChun
09-23-2005, 12:53 AM
Is it a martial art or not? It's not good to be a pure theorist.
This isn't the maths world.

People CLAIM all sorts of things are pure. i.e. I'm doing stuff the more correct way.

I disagree that the pure art is the one that's less applicable.
It should be the more applicable one.



My definition of pure was very different from the one you are talking about. Every lineage in my definition has a pure art as part of their study which later can become an applied art for those so inclined. The pure people can study forms, theory and do heavy duty sparring but it falls short of the definition proposed by Terrence for example as doing real fighting or real swimming as he put it. The applied people take their pure art in the direction that Terrence indicated as being the most useful.

Ray

Nick Forrer
09-23-2005, 01:26 AM
I have studied Wing Chun for 3 years...............

Last summer, I was fortunate to train under my Chinese wife's uncle in Indonesia. He lived in a Shaolin monestary from age 4 to 30, when he left to get married. Now, he is 68 years old



If your uncle in law has trained for 64 years in kung fu and you have trained for 3 (other mas not withstanding) its really no surprise that he manhandled you. Trust me, at 3 years you're just starting wing chun.

Airdrawndagger
09-23-2005, 10:32 AM
I agree

3 years of wing chun is only the begining of actually learning the art.

This topic is good for discussion because it calls on certain practices within the art ie fighter or theorist.
Terrence only wants to use his art/style in a MMA format to try to prove the styles worthiness, but until you master yourself you will not be able to master a martial art.
Everybody wins, everybody loses. The MMA format is probably the best way to test skills in a live environment with out actually fighting for real, but it is still just a game with rules and anybody who plays games will eventually lose.

Wing Chun is an art specifically designed for FIGHTING. The practitioner needs to become a FIGHTER in order to unveil the true nature of wing chun. This is the reason why I feel that wing chun has taken a downward turn.

Look at all the wing chun FIGHTERS of the 40s and 50s. The sifus of today that learned under GMYIP. Alot of them actually tested wing chun in actual fights. Beimo is the definition of a challenge match. Most of us have heard of these challenge matches taking place on the roof tops of buildings in Hong Kong. Some of the best applied knowledge came from challenge matches if not ALL knowledge.
It was quite common in China and Hong Kong for kung fu schools to challenge each other in a test of skills.
Most of the time they did not wear any equipment which allowed them the freedom of total fluidity without restrictive movements. This way they were able to use the full spectrum of there moves aside from lethal manouvers.

In order for US to carry the KUNG FU torch we need really test each other in Beimo. If we do not then the art will suffer and become stagnet, then eventually phase out of existence with the only thing left to talk about but the HISTORY of Kung fu.

Hendrik
09-23-2005, 10:44 AM
Instead of looking at it As pure and applied, fighter and Theorician, Wing Chun or MMA...
I break it down to a common denominator --- Action Realtiy and analysis/synthesis.


Action Reality is Reality, as a punch is a punch. A take down is a Take down. The punch or take down can be Analysis/synthesis is various different focus such as to investigate the support mechanics, force flow, and direction of focus perception....etc.


IMHHO,
Typical issue raise when

1, one confuse Analysis/Synthesis as Action Reality such as a punch has to be punch this and only this way , step 1, 2, 3... ;

or on the other hand, Analysis/Synthesis means nothing to Action Reality such as there is no value is understanding how to develop Zhen Qi and use Zhen Qi as an indicator of the attainment of breathing and body sensitivity.

2, Proposing an "close perception answer " type of Action (Reality, such as street fight.. or UFC fight) or Analysis/Synthesis as the Ultimate which cover all Action Reality. Such as brand X beat all other martial arts, or Wing Chun is created to beat all other martial art....etc.

Since we know everything is growing and expanding in this world, declaing a "Close perception solution" to answer all the questions at anything is a problematic perception by itself. who knows what new invention will shown up the next moment?


3, The common-denominator of Action Reality is incomplete.

Such as if a style has answer or solution and training to a broad range of action common-denominator compoents such as kick, punch, take down, lock... while the other style or a school of that style doesnt have the major common-denominator components.
Then the one with a broad range of common-denominators is dealing with reality closer than the one that lack of major action components.

sometimes, in this case, the lack of common-denominator party will evoke the #2 above using the "close perception" as answer which blinding one even more or #1 using the Analysis/synthesis trying to "talk " or "think" or " blind " or "cut" away the issues they are facing.



4, Inertial physical/psychology state of the practitioner are not bring into picture. as Inertialphysical/psychology state of the practitioner is an Action Realtiy, not bring into the big picture is generating a blind spot while describing the realtiy. Not to mention, without Analysis/Synthesis solution to support or adapt to the innertial physical/psychological state causes un realistics projection which is driven away from the Action reality.




Thus, it is not about WCK or MMA or Pure or Theory or fighter or theorician......
It is do we know what we are doing? do we prepared for the Action Reality via different components ?
Or we just hold on to our view and stuck with it, be it the view is a partial close perception Action Reality believer or Analytical/synthesis idealism?

The questions then is will the individual to grow and expand?

YongChun
09-23-2005, 10:49 AM
If your uncle in law has trained for 64 years in kung fu and you have trained for 3 (other mas not withstanding) its really no surprise that he manhandled you. Trust me, at 3 years you're just starting wing chun.

I was going to say the same thing. Three years is just beginning to learn something about Wing Chun.

Ray

Hendrik
09-23-2005, 11:02 AM
In order for US to carry the KUNG FU torch we need really test each other in Beimo. If we do not then the art will suffer and become stagnet, then eventually phase out of existence with the only thing left to talk about but the HISTORY of Kung fu.


IMHHHO

Beimo is not equal to Kung Fu.

Beimo is nice but what to Bei? who is more saddistic? more agressive? better skill? Better cultivation is flow? better understanding? clearly on how to produce high quality students?........

Lots of things very broad IMHO. Otherwise, we might stucked in the "close perception"

Fajing
09-23-2005, 11:26 AM
[QUOTE=Airdrawndagger]
Terrence only wants to use his art/style in a MMA format to try to prove the styles worthiness, but until you master yourself you will not be able to master a martial art.
Everybody wins, everybody loses. The MMA format is probably the best way to test skills in a live environment with out actually fighting for real, but it is still just a game with rules and anybody who plays games will eventually lose.[QUOTE=Airdrawndagger]

Nicely said! ;)

Ultimatewingchun
09-23-2005, 04:09 PM
The opening post of this thread about the difference between "pure" wing chun vs. "applied" wing chun reminds me of what goes on in some BJJ circles these days:

within BJJ-only tournaments wherein only certain techniques are allowed and all other things are banned (ie.- no striking)...and gi's must be worn (because of the "handles" they provide for BJJ moves to be accessed)...and points are given every time you pass a "guard" position, for example - because you're now in a more dominant BJJ position...

(ie.- imagine a wing chun match wherein you gain points every time you force your opponent to use bong sao - since bong is considered to be a "weak" hand - and must be transitioned into something else quickly or you're in danger of getting hit by your wing chun opponent's "better" next move)...

but the guy using the bong sao lost the match on points even though he dropped you twice with a roundhouse kick that's not considered wing chun (in most wing chun circles) and therefore no points were awarded to him for the knockdowns...

and the point to all of this is..................

Successful Fight Application is infinitely more important than "purity"....imo...

unless you no longer look upon the style you do as a MARTIAL ART - and prefer to look upon it as some sort of SPORT...

(ie.- "it doesn't matter whether or not the guy down the street can kick my a55 with his streetfighting strategies and moves - as long as my wing chun is PURE." :cool:

P.S. - the two examples given about passing guard or forcing bong sao are "superior" only within a certain limited relative context - but since reality fighting knows no such limits - the importance of these "relatively" superior moves are OVERSTATED AND EXAGGERATED.

Tom Kagan
09-23-2005, 04:20 PM
For a Ving Tsun practitioner, there is nothing purer than an optimally leveraged blast down an optimal line at the optimal moment.

Purity is a process, not a state. So is application. They are one continuum.

Pure v. Applied is a false dichotomy.


The real question is what in the world this whole ball of wax is meant for. Could it be one of the following:

- Self-defense/professional use of force
- Tradition/physical art/self-discipline
- Spiritual/health
- Sport/tournament
- Demonstration

Does this style's slant match what you want? That is the question; That is the duality.

Do you even know what you want? Choose wisely.

:cool:

schwarzdragon
09-23-2005, 06:44 PM
Hello again, my brothers:
Last night was my first time posting here. I was surprised that many of you responded. Of course, 3 years is just the beginning of the rest of my life spent in perfecting the art. Unfortunately, I'm already 46 years old. My son was born in 2000, the year of the Golden Dragon. This is the same Chinese zodiac of the late Bruce Lee, who was born in 1940. My only hope is to pass on my knowledge to my half-Chinese son. Maybe, he can be the next Bruce Lee. Selamat malam.

Airdrawndagger
09-23-2005, 09:13 PM
IMHHHO

Beimo is not equal to Kung Fu.

Beimo is nice but what to Bei? who is more saddistic? Being more saddisic is a characteristic of aggression which may or may not lead the applicant to more sucess in a match. more agressive? better skill? Better cultivation is flow? better understanding? Yes. Better understanding and cultivation are charateristics of better skill which will allow the practitioner to further there understandings and knowledge of that particular art. clearly on how to produce high quality students?........

Lots of things very broad IMHO. Otherwise, we might stucked in the "close perception"

constant chi sao with out other tests of skill under a real, live, spontaneous environment could also be considered "close perception"...

You will never fully understand war if you only go to boot camp.

Edmund
09-24-2005, 04:40 AM
My definition of pure was very different from the one you are talking about. Every lineage in my definition has a pure art as part of their study which later can become an applied art for those so inclined. The pure people can study forms, theory and do heavy duty sparring but it falls short of the definition proposed by Terrence for example as doing real fighting or real swimming as he put it. The applied people take their pure art in the direction that Terrence indicated as being the most useful.


What's so pure about only studying forms and theory?
I think those who are just doing forms and theory aren't studying WC at all.
Any numbskull can do some choreographed WC routines and memorize some sayings.

The whole point of the theories is to be able put them to use. They are supposed to help you become a better fighter. Why come up with theories at all?

I mean anyone could imagine all sorts of theories that don't help anyone in the slightest. Then they call it WC and say, "I'm a purist."

There's all manner of Qigong phonies claiming theories about health. Unless they
actually manage to help someone get healthier what's the point of it?

lawrenceofidaho
09-24-2005, 05:41 AM
What's so pure about only studying forms and theory?
It is pure.......

Pure conjecture, that is........ ;)

sihing
09-24-2005, 08:03 AM
It is pure.......

Pure conjecture, that is........ ;)

Until it becomes truth for you? Then it is not conjecture?

This applies for everyone here. You have to absorb the system within yourself and then test it under fire (not to prove that it works but to absorb it within yourself under stress). When that challenge is met and passed you can say it is not theory but fact. Now since some of us here are teachers also, we can say more than "it just works for me and maybe not for others", because some of us have passed on our knowledge and have seen others (average joe's and jane's) use the same methods as us to acheive similar effectiveness with it. Now through the years I have seen some who did not gain the skills needed to make themselves effective using WC methodologies. Is this the art's fault or their own fault? It's their own fault IMO, because they did not train enough and/or lacked enthusiasm towards what they were studying.

James

P.S. Lawrence, no disrespect and try not to take this personally (as I know you are a nice guy, really) but more and more I see a real lack of faith regarding WC and it's methods coming from you. Why even post or view posts on this forum anymore when you feel this way? I find it funny when people that claim to practice WC come on here to put it down, or are you (like others) looking at individuals and basing your opinions on that? Maybe you should look only at the best of the best (famous WC players like Cheung, Boztepe, Lam, etc..) and base your opinions on them? Would you be so confident in WC's lack of combat effectiveness when facing one of these people in a life and death situation? Maybe you, as well as some others on this forum, should look at the JKD board, it's just below this one, that may fill your needs....

lawrenceofidaho
09-24-2005, 02:12 PM
Now since some of us here are teachers also, we can say more than "it just works for me and maybe not for others", because some of us have passed on our knowledge and have seen others (average joe's and jane's) use the same methods as us to acheive similar effectiveness with it.....
Effectiveness against who?
-Skilled & conditioned fighters? (Just curious.......)


Maybe you should look only at the best of the best (famous WC players like ______, Boztepe, Lam, etc..) and base your opinions on them? Would you be so confident in WC's lack of combat effectiveness when facing one of these people in a life and death situation?
Boztepe and Lam were both:
1) Competitive full contact fighters
2) Cross-trainers
I think those two qualities played a big part in the level of ability they now possess, which is why I advocate those experiences for people who want to have effective wing chun fighting skills. (Perhaps not necessarily competitive fighting experience, but at least going through hard sparring cycles similar to how full contact fighters train.)

-Lawrence

stricker
09-24-2005, 03:59 PM
hey lawrence,

I think this (http://fred.wackiness.org/lackoffaith.html) is what sihing James is trying to say!

(jk james, please dont take offense hahaha)

anyway, i totally agree with you lawrence (about boztepe and lam) the way i see it its about the journey as much as the destination. funny too, all the martial arts teachers i actually trust have been there done that, experienced a few different martial arts and actually fought. i think really experience is so valuable. otherwise your just living in a bubble.

of course youve gotta have depth as well as breath. and sihing i'm not saying wing chun sucks and mma is the way to go, or everyone has to do mma, far from it wing chun is awesome and everyones journey and choices are personal. but i think the benefits FAR outweigh any downsides and if your in a position to do some (for example) mma training and you dont, or if you say any other martial art is a load of rubbish without actually educating yourself, your doing your wing chun a disservice. it allows us to get from pure conjecture to something we know in ourselves.

sure you can look at say wing chun geometry and say yeah i know if i shift correctly i wont get hit but i can hit him because of the shoulders and range etc, but is that really knowing in yourself from experience, or is it knowing on a purely intellectual level??? sure it works in class, but what about against someone outside that environment, or even a real boxer is a tricky b*stard?? what if you try it and it doesnt work :eek: (not that it wont ever, just it needs more training to iron out your mistakes, which you wont know unless you ... etc...)

i'm a wing chun faithful, testing the limits of his faith and doing a first-hand course in comparative religion hahaha... dont choke me sihing for my lack of faith hahaha!

oh and tom kagan, the way i see wing chun is its a martial art, and those slants are personal choices what we choose to get out of it. so really there is no slant. out of interest what do you think wing chuns slant is?

anyway back to the point of the thread, i sort of liked the first post i mean there is a difference between pure wing chun (like some detail in dan chi for example) and applied wing chun (how to deal with a kicking attack for example) but utlimately the two should be the same, or as you said a continuum. for example doing very technical dan chi might seem pointless for fighting, but then if you do do it, you might find in an applied (fighting) situation that it makes a difference. so again i think it needs balance. you should probably take a concept or bit of detail, move in a form or whatever, and go across the whole spectrum with it, so start in the form, then chi sao, then lat sao drill, then for real. then back to the start and so on... but if you spend too much time at either end of the spectrum without visiting the other then youll be all out of balance, and end up not being as effective. what that balance is... dont ask me im not a teacher hahaha!

cheers!

BRIAN
09-24-2005, 05:28 PM
WING CHUN IS AN EXCELLENT ART AND FIGHTING SYSTEM. uNFORTUNATLY LIKE MANY THERE THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T MAKE IT COUNTR WHEN IT REALLY MATTERS BUT THAT GOES FOR ANY ART. IN RERGARDS TO MMA ALTHOUGH I HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR THEIR ABILITIES AND THE CONDITIONING THEY MUST GO THROUGH REMEMBER IT STILL JUST A SPORT. TRY GRAPPLING IN THE STREET OR IN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS BROKEN GLASS, HYPERDERMIC NEEDLES OR MULTIPLE ATTACKERS. bELIEVE ME WHEN MMA FIRST CAME OUT EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD A WOODIE FOR IT NOW THEY HAVE REVISTED IT AND HAVE REALIZED THAT BEING ON THE GROUND IS NOT WHERE YOU WANT TO BE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE SHOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING IN THE ARENA EITHER. BUT HONESTLY, AMERICAN KUNG FU WAS TAUGHT TO US BY THOSE CHINESE KUNG FU PRACTICIONERS. I FOR ONE WAS TAUGHT BY ONE OF THEM AND I HAVE BEEN TRAINING FOR ABOUT 14 YEARS AND MY SIFU CAN STILL TOSS ME.

chisauking
09-24-2005, 05:37 PM
May I ask, what did Willy Cheung cross train in?

Gary Lam may have crossed trained, but why doesn't he feel the need to adopt his previous style(s) into wing chun? And, why doesn't he train in Thai boxing any more?

Hawkins Cheung may have crossed trained, but why doesn't he pratice karate any more?

More telling, why have they chosen wing chun over their previous styles? If cross training is productive in learning wing chun, why haven't they incorporated this method to their teaching?

lawrenceofidaho
09-24-2005, 05:57 PM
May I ask, what did Willy Cheung cross train in?
I have no idea what he did, or did not, cross train in, which is why I did not refer to him at all in my post.


Gary Lam may have crossed trained, but why doesn't he feel the need to adopt his previous style(s) into wing chun?
He has, actually.......
Ernie is probably the best person to describe the extent.


And, why doesn't he train in Thai boxing any more?
What makes you think he doesn't? Or for that matter, that he doesn't have a current interest in any other styles?


Hawkins Cheung may have crossed trained, but why doesn't he pratice karate any more?
Likely, because karate shares many of the same weaknesses as wing chun unless it has been modified by modern training methods and insights gained from realistic sparring.


More telling, why have they chosen wing chun over their previous styles?
Wing Chun is a great style, IMO...... Why not choose it as your primary art? :)


If cross training is productive in learning wing chun, why haven't they incorporated this method to their teaching?
Many good instructors have.......aside from the aforementioned, guys like Chung K. Chow, Alan Orr, and a number of ex-EWTO masters also come to mind.

lawrenceofidaho
09-24-2005, 06:50 PM
bELIEVE ME WHEN MMA FIRST CAME OUT EVERY POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD A WOODIE FOR IT NOW THEY HAVE REVISTED IT AND HAVE REALIZED THAT BEING ON THE GROUND IS NOT WHERE YOU WANT TO BE.
When "MMA" first came out, it was actually BJJ purists flopping into the guard, and tiring out the pure strikers before applying a submission........ Few of those guys would last 60 seconds against today's well-rounded competitors, though......

MMA is probably the fastest evolving (i.e. -improving) "martial art" there is......... MMA today is not about taking the fight to the ground, -it's about doing what's most effective in a given situation.

Check out Straight Blast Gym's MMA curriculum for law enforcement here:
http://www.isrmatrix.org/videos/isrle25mb.wmv

I think you'll be impressed by what you see there, Brian. :)

Now let's talk about about MMA and Wing Chun cross-trained!.......... Oh yeah!! :D

-L

BRIAN
09-24-2005, 07:27 PM
I dont mean to say that's all MMA is about. I know it's not. But The shelf life of a fighter is not extremly long. The thing I like about WC, Aikido and other atrs similar is that even when your fifty you are still just as effective or even more so. But the art doesn't make the fighter but the person does. I appreciate your input from my last reply, i do personally cross train a little bit.

Matrix
09-24-2005, 08:32 PM
Why even post or view posts on this forum anymore when you feel this way? I find it funny when people that claim to practice WC come on here to put it down, or are you (like others) looking at individuals and basing your opinions on that? ....... Maybe you, as well as some others on this forum, should look at the JKD board, it's just below this one, that may fill your needs....James,

First of all, this is a PUBLIC forum and people are free to express themselves as they see fit. You have no right to ask people to leave or disrespect them - despite your half-hearted comments to the contrary - because you don't like what they have to say.

I don't see why you feel the need to chastize people who don't support your view. Your view should be able to withstand the challenge that others post.

I think that if you look at chisauking's reply, you will see a much more mature response. At least that's how I see it. :)

BRIAN
09-24-2005, 08:54 PM
Lawrence,

I watched the link you advised me on and I thought it was excellent. I for one teach my wing chun vry similar to the way the were showing it in terms of Chi Na techniques. If you noticed oone of the core things they did in almost every movement was keep the center line and face to face theory an almost constant. Therefore, I believe that when one does not properly adapt to the real world and it's enviorment then you are truly not doing wing chun. Also, remember Wing Chun is meant for the average person to defend themselves again the average or above average person. It is not an antedote for verything or every situation, but you the practicioner must apply the art in a way that makes sence to you. That is why Wing Chun is a concept and does not or should not teach specific movements but rather teach how to feel oyur opponents movement and how you should respond. Thanks again for the link.

Brian

sihing
09-24-2005, 09:55 PM
Effectiveness against who?
-Skilled & conditioned fighters? (Just curious.......)


Boztepe and Lam were both:
1) Competitive full contact fighters
2) Cross-trainers
I think those two qualities played a big part in the level of ability they now possess, which is why I advocate those experiences for people who want to have effective wing chun fighting skills. (Perhaps not necessarily competitive fighting experience, but at least going through hard sparring cycles similar to how full contact fighters train.)

-Lawrence

Lawrence,

Please define Skilled and Conditioned fighters? And since when did Idaho have a monopoly on them...

When was Boztepe a competitive fighter? Streetfighter yes, I have heard all the stories. I've also heard about Sifu Lam's experiences, and I believe the same that a competitive experience will not hurt one's usage of Martial skills, but is it really necessary? You say that if one's trains to the same intensity as the competitors that the same results will prevail. I agree, hard testing of one's skills have to take place for the student to actually learn and be able to apply the skills WC will engrain in them. You can call it whatever you want, sparring or testing, it is all the same. Now do I really have to go and fight with every competitive fighter in the city to do this? Well if my goal is to compete in the competitive theater, then maybe you are right, but not all want this type of experience. So IMO sparring and testing in the school against those that can test them sufficiently enough will suffice. I know from experience that I can test anyone in the school to a sufficient enough level of skill to be able to use it on the street. And there are many others in the kwoon that can provide the same. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, only thing is the pro's through them faster and stronger, which can be dealt with when proper application of WC is applied. You see it doesn't matter how fast or strong your attacker is when you have already slowed them down and taken away their strength with proper understanding and application of WC concept/principals and technique. As a practitioner I too have strength and speed to offer to my opponent, so it is not a one sided affair. All of us (when you are not physically disabled) have this to offer our opponents, so why do people here always claim it to be us as the weaklings and our opponents as so much more skilled and conditioned. In our kwoon, every day we have classes we have 1 conditioning/cardio class, which consists of very high intense kicking, punching, hand bag work, kicking/heavy bag work, push up, sit ups, leg raises, knee ups, etc etc...drills, lasting 1 hour. All kinds have come through the doors over the years to try the class, not one has gone through the whole workout the first time without having to stop. So that is covered in regards to how we train our students, and we are NOT a competitive/sport training facility (although we have had successes in the ring).

I think in essence we essentially agree on many points. To become effective in a fighting art, you have to practice consistently and train hard physically, with a good understanding of what one is training in. But physical training alone will not make you a great fighter. What you train in, how effective it is, and your understanding of it will add to the equation, IMO.


James

sihing
09-24-2005, 10:09 PM
James,

First of all, this is a PUBLIC forum and people are free to express themselves as they see fit. You have no right to ask people to leave or disrespect them - despite your half-hearted comments to the contrary - because you don't like what they have to say.

I don't see why you feel the need to chastize people who don't support your view. Your view should be able to withstand the challenge that others post.

I think that if you look at chisauking's reply, you will see a much more mature response. At least that's how I see it. :)

I agree with you Bill, each and every member here has a right to express their opinions, and whether or not I agree with them I would not and did not tell anyone to leave or ask them either. The words, "Why" and "Maybe" were used in my post you quoted. These words may be understood as a suggestion, not a command.

I don't chastize people, but I wonder why, and confront those that claim to be practitioners of WC but look for every chance to put it down, that's all and that's what I have seen from a few on this forum (maybe that's why most have left this forum to look elsewhere...). I have a faith in WC and when someone says in simple terms that it sucks, I get SLIGHTLY offended when I know otherwise. It's not a personal thing, and I would love to meet everyone on this forum someday in a friendly environment to exchange ideas and train with, as this would be the only way to really understand what one another is try to explain to us all through these posts.

James

anerlich
09-24-2005, 11:14 PM
May I ask, what did Willy Cheung cross train in?

Sure you can ask. From memory, Nunchaku and Taiji, and probably a whole lot of stuff nobody's heard about.


If cross training is productive in learning wing chun, why haven't they incorporated this method to their teaching?

How do you know William Cheung hasn't? My first KF instructor trained with him extensively in the late 1960's. He actually, according to my instructor, had a very open mind at the time and occasionally taught his students things that would cause the purists on this forum to convulse with apoplexy. My instructor had a pretty comprehensive CLF background, and Mr Cheung used to send his students to his class to give them the experience against fighters who didn't drink the WC koolaid. Cross training before the term was coined.

My first teacher was an eclectic stylist. I still regard myself as one, with a heavy emphasis on WC. Now I train with a WC teacher who has diversified. If that offends someone's purist sensibilities ...

GOOD.

anerlich
09-24-2005, 11:23 PM
The thing I like about WC, Aikido and other atrs similar is that even when your fifty you are still just as effective or even more so.

You young punks. :p

I'm 50 now, I did two hours of BJJ rolling and standing clinch work this morning. And reviewed all my WC forms with my instructor. I think the young pups I took down and tapped out ould say I'm effective enough.

Maybe the "old" people are all fat, lazy and decrepid where YOU come from ... I see no reason why I can't do WC and BJJ for another 20 years.

Ultimatewingchun
09-24-2005, 11:39 PM
I'll be turning 55 in about 4 weeks...and still ready to kick some a55. :D :D :D


Seriously...it's about the shape you keep yourself in...including the Flexibility of your mind! ;)

Matrix
09-25-2005, 09:12 AM
I don't chastize people, but I wonder why, and confront those that claim to be practitioners of WC but look for every chance to put it down, that's all and that's what I have seen from a few on this forum (maybe that's why most have left this forum to look elsewhere...). James, We've been through this several times in the past. It just seems that the name may change, but the game is the same. I just choose not to participate. I have come to conclusion that I no longer am interested in trying to convince others of my perspective. I'm willing to discuss it, but have no interest in getting into these mud slinging matches. As for "faith", that is largely a personal thing. You cannot give faith to someone else. I remember a phrase that suits the situation, but I can't remember the author...."To those that believe, no further proof is necessary. To those that do not, none will suffice."

I don't get offended, because we each much travel the path alone and find our own way, and someone else's opinions are just that, opinions.

It's not a personal thing, and I would love to meet everyone on this forum someday in a friendly environment to exchange ideas and train with, as this would be the only way to really understand what one another is try to explain to us all through these posts.I would say that it would be difficult to have a friendly exchange of ideas, if we are going to be offended, even SLIGHTLY, by points of view that are bound to conflict with ours. You are right, it's not a personal thing, so let's not react as if it were. You need to have faith with your eyes wide open, not blindly. You cannot become dogmatic, or else your ability to grow will cease and probably atrophy.

Like you I hope to meet others on the forum, and I've had the extreme pleasure of meeting Old Jong and Victor. I can't wait to meet others.

Cheers,

Edmund
09-25-2005, 05:49 PM
Now since some of us here are teachers also, we can say more than "it just works for me and maybe not for others", because some of us have passed on our knowledge and have seen others (average joe's and jane's) use the same methods as us to acheive similar effectiveness with it.

Well that's good! It actually has some effectiveness.
As far as you know, you practice stuff with a practical application.

It's a lot better than dividing WC into theories that are pure and not pure.
That just seems to justify learning things that you don't understand the application of.

Now of course people are going to disagree about the RELATIVE effectiveness of this or that particular technique. But we are all concerned with applying the art.

chisauking
09-25-2005, 05:54 PM
First of all, I'm not down grading cross training. I'm just curious to investigated what prominant wing chun practitioners had gained from cross training and what worth and values had they retained from their experiences. So far, there doesn't seem to be any edvidence that those wing chun practitioners that had cross trained has incorporated any of their previous styles to their present wing chun.

Why is that so?

If Hawkings had invested so much time in karate, only to find the style wanting, what values had he gained from cross training, and was it necessary to cross train to begin with?

If Gary Lam spent so much time in thai boxing, only to discard most of it, what was the point of investing so much time in cross training in the first place?

Why had Wong Sheung Leung settled on wing chun even though he started with western boxing?

I think it's wise to learn from people's journies before we set out on the same track ourselves

Edmund
09-25-2005, 06:05 PM
anyway back to the point of the thread, i sort of liked the first post i mean there is a difference between pure wing chun (like some detail in dan chi for example) and applied wing chun (how to deal with a kicking attack for example) but utlimately the two should be the same, or as you said a continuum. for example doing very technical dan chi might seem pointless for fighting, but then if you do do it, you might find in an applied (fighting) situation that it makes a difference. so again i think it needs balance. you should probably take a concept or bit of detail, move in a form or whatever, and go across the whole spectrum with it, so start in the form, then chi sao, then lat sao drill, then for real. then back to the start and so on... but if you spend too much time at either end of the spectrum without visiting the other then youll be all out of balance, and end up not being as effective. what that balance is... dont ask me im not a teacher hahaha!


Well if pure wing chun like dan chi can find an application, that pretty much means that it is not pure by Ray's definition.

Effectiveness is still the goal though.

anerlich
09-25-2005, 06:50 PM
I'm just curious to investigated what prominant wing chun practitioners had gained from cross training and what worth and values had they retained from their experiences.

Well, OK, though it does sound a bit like you're trying on appeals to authority to support your own POV.

There are probably as many other people who started with WC and went on to excellence in something else. As a WC practitioner you don't hear about them because they aren't, or don't want to be, recognised as prominent WC practitioners. And perhaps you don't want to look too hard in that direction, lest it weaken your argument?

Bruce Lee's a prime example of someone who went the other way. You could argue that this was because he wasn't taught the full system and this had to seek answers elsewhere, but you could apply the same argument to Hawkins' experience with Karate and WSL's with boxing. Maybe they didn't apply themselves to those particular systems as they could/should have, or their trainers weren't as thorough as they could/should have been. And, jeez, maybe WC just suited them better than other things - but you can't extrapolate that out to say it's going to be the single best system for everybody, or that sticking with a single system is necessarily the best approach for us all.


I think it's wise to learn from people's journies before we set out on the same track ourselves

No arguments there, but maybe you need to take your own advice seriously and look at a wider group of people and/or explore a bit deeper. Your earlier reference to William Cheung, which you've now dropped, perhaps turned out not to support your argument that well when you looked more closely at it, for example.

I don't put Wing Chun down ... but I don't make it the subject of unwarranted boosting either.

Matrix
09-25-2005, 06:53 PM
Well if pure wing chun like dan chi can find an application, that pretty much means that it is not pure by Ray's definition.

Effectiveness is still the goal though.I think so as well. Besides, in the truest sense of the word, nothing is really "pure" in this imperfect world. "Pure Gold" is only 99.99% gold, since the even the best refining process cannot remove all impurities. That being said, maybe the ideal of being "pure" is not all it's cracked up to be.

lawrenceofidaho
09-25-2005, 10:56 PM
-a phrase that suits the situation...."To those that believe, no further proof is necessary. To those that do not, none will suffice."
Bill,

I disagree that the second half of the phrase fits here......

What generally attracts folks to cross-training is a pragmatism in their thinking; (what works? / what is functional? / what will be effective against skilled fighters?), -not an immature stubborness which would ever say; "I don't care what evidence you show me, I won't believe it."

Every MMA fighter looks for an edge, and would be happy to accept most any insight, training method, etc. that would increase their performance, -no matter where it originated from.

Yet, who can blame fighters for being skeptical about most Wing Chun? Nearly every time they ask for evidence of it's effectiveness, they are shown some lame, cooperative demo, or given an excuse why it can't used successfully in an MMA environment (e.g. - "It's too deadly.")

If there were Wing Chun fighters suddenly becoming successful in the high level NHB events, there would be a number of MMA folks (at all levels) interested in exploring Wing Chun........

Cross-trainers are not at all like kool-aid drinkers who already have their minds made up. -They actually weigh rational evidence before making decisions.

-Lawrence

sihing
09-25-2005, 11:21 PM
Bill,

I disagree that the second half of the phrase fits here......

What generally attracts folks to cross-training is a pragmatism in their thinking; (what works? / what is functional? / what will be effective against skilled fighters?), -not an immature stubborness which would ever say; "I don't care what evidence you show me, I won't believe it."

Every MMA fighter looks for an edge, and would be happy to accept most any insight, training method, etc. that would increase their performance, -no matter where it originated from.

Yet, who can blame fighters for being skeptical about most Wing Chun? Nearly every time they ask for evidence of it's effectiveness, they are shown some lame, cooperative demo, or given an excuse why it can't used successfully in an MMA environment (e.g. - "It's too deadly.")

If there were Wing Chun fighters suddenly becoming successful in the high level NHB events, there would be a number of MMA folks (at all levels) interested in exploring Wing Chun........

Cross-trainers are not at all like kool-aid drinkers who already have their minds made up. -They actually weigh rational evidence before making decisions.

-Lawrence

I look for a edge too, what is effective against this and that, always have and always will...That's why I have investigated everyone from Vunak to Lam, from Erle Montagiue to Joseph Simonet..Unfortunately I cannot meet these people in person due to distance, and I am not willing to spend my savings visiting them for a introductory lesson, but you can still understand the basis or foundation of what they teach by what they put out to the public, or is it all falsehood?

I can see your point Lawrence, BEING CLOSED MINDED AND NOT INVESTIGATING OTHER METHODS, is not smart. I for one have done otherwise for the last 17yrs and still have not seen, read, been told or shown anything more effective. Could any of these "Masters" listed above teach me anything? Oh, yes they could most definetly, regarding what they teach...My preface is effectiveness, and it is easy to see when you know what to look for. Again it is never about the individual but about the system when looking for what is effective, what it teaches and the how, why, when, where's...in the end the individual has to make it work when needed, the same for all systems and styles of MA. So if your MMA friends do not see the effectivness behind WC then that is their BAD JUDGEMENT...maybe they are too blind to see in the first place..


James

P.S. Again I sense a very prevelant lack of faith in WC shown by yourself, another opportunity has shown it self for you to show a weakness in WC and you have taken it with intensity, unfortunate.

James

Fajing
09-26-2005, 06:06 AM
Every MMA fighter looks for an edge, and would be happy to accept most any insight, training method, etc. that would increase their performance, -no matter where it originated from.-Lawrence


There is nothing wrong with this. I choose Wing Chun because it HAS proven effective for me in REAL LIFE. It WORKED on the street, even when faced with the element of surprise. We have to feel confident and comfortable in what we train. I personally, like James, prefer a stand-up method, and like to keep on my feet if I can. I feel that on my feet, I'm faster, stronger (striking), and much more mobile. Once again, cross training is fine also. It's really up to the individual, and where his/her strength(s) lies. We are all different, and possess different skills, but we do all know that we have to prepare for a variety of attacks. I always feel the need to train with a blade, but have never used it simply because I haven't needed to. It is a whole new ballgame. Although it carries tons of legal ramifications, a blade in your hand can give you outstanding confidence if you know what you're doing. And if you need it, screw the law. We're talking about your life here. Haaaa, we can't depend on them to watch our backs in most cases. There is a game out there to fit pretty much anyone. :) Rock on!

Ernie
09-26-2005, 08:35 AM
Q 1 If Hawkins had invested so much time in karate, only to find the style wanting, what values had he gained from cross training, and was it necessary to cross train to begin with?

Answer , funny you should ask I just worked out with Hawkins 2 weeks ago , first of he found out he couldn't deal with the speed or power of the old school [real] karate guys [not the mcdojo American style ] he even spoke with yip about this on one of his return trips to visit his Sifu
based on his REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE not his hand me down Sifu says story , he found he had to make adaptions to his stance and development of footwork , he also adapted the karate guys weight training and conditioning work outs , he had to learn more about timing and distance and using distance as a strategy , tuning his personal attributes up to a level he could execute his battle plan

last week he was deep into his water body tai chi type motion having no structure at all until the moment the person gave him a reason , so in the past 5-6 years I have known him I have personally seen him evolve quite a bit .

Why simple he is not bound to some ridicules cookie cutter Sifu created standardization belt achievement crap , this will always trap you and limit personal growth



Q 2 If Gary Lam spent so much time in Thai boxing, only to discard most of it, what was the point of investing so much time in cross training in the first place?

we still train thigh/ kicks /elbow and clinch after the core [basics] hand forms dummy weapons , we break basics and introduce problems try and pressure test

in the later stages free fight training is offered for those that want it , but the main thing that Sifu Lams [real life experiences] have brought to the table are this
we can see bull$hit for what it is
meaning if you are training to fight then fighting is your goal , not belts or logo's lineage connections to some dead [ I get the biggest laugh when I see people listing that crap I'm third disciple from 4th cousin of flying monkey plum blossom ]


if your goal is to fight , then you need to [ to the best of your potential and life style ] go out and gain experience , for some it's ring/matt time for some it's in the bars or streets , other visit other schools and compare

if your going to subject yourself to this type of abuse then you will quickly realize how much conditioning is needed to protect your body and stay in the game

so to sum up what Sifu Lam brought over from cross training [ you need to gain experience being in front of many people that really want to do you harm , this gives you a clear and honest view on most of the Bull$hit people are peddling . train at least up to a semi professional level so you understand before you speak about others and what is really out there ]



Q3 Why had Wong Sheung Leung settled on wing chun even though he started with western boxing?

WSL gained the understanding of honing simple motions , efficient body mechanics and direct yet mobile footwork , had he not boxed and fought he would have never had a measuring stick
this kept him from being enamored by all the fluff in wing Chun technique that so many get lost in that have no experience

all three of these guys say the same thing chi sau is just a game , you do not chi sau , slt ,chum kui or bil jee your opponent , *YOU* fight him , the training is just a path to refine and test the knowledge you gain from personal first hand experience


now I will leave you to the continued beating of the dead horse ;)

whitefox
09-26-2005, 09:19 AM
Cross-trainers are not at all like kool-aid drinkers who already have their minds made up. -They actually weigh rational evidence before making decisions.

-Lawrence

SOME WC people are the same way.

sihing
09-26-2005, 09:21 AM
Ernie,

Your summation is absolutely true. You will not Chi-sao, biu gee, etc. etc. your opponent, you will fight them! I tell the students that ask, in the end the idea is not to try and use perfect WC movement in a fight, but to beat your opponent and get out safely, plain and simple. Hopefully, the training time you have spent in the WC kwoon would have come in handy and made the task easier and safer for you.

My Sifu also has experience in other Systems, although we do not use any of the techniques or concept from the systems, we do incorportate training ideas from them. We are all taught the excersises and kicking technique for example that are foreign to most all WC systems in our training. Combo kicking, high/low, hook kicking is all there just to name a few. You have to learn from your experiences, as did Sifu Hawkins and Sifu Lam, and relate it to your students. It doesn't hurt and saves the students time, IMO.

James

YongChun
09-26-2005, 03:52 PM
In our school we have people at all levels from zero to more than 25 years. If there is a good teacher of something around, then I don't hesitate to recommend any student with enough Wing Chun to go and learn a bit of that.

For example one guy studied Thai boxing while a good Thai guy was in town.

Another smaller guy who wasn't too bad at Wing Chun was always easy for me to take down because I have some wrestling background, I am bigger than him and am more experienced in Wing Chun. So I recommended he go and study from one of the better grapplers in town who specializes in that stuff as opposed to me teaching him what I knew about grappling. My grappling is just from my wrestling days. So anyway he did and now he is much more difficult to take down and also he can contribute other valuable skills to our fighting mix.

Various other people train regularly with Preying Mantis and Capoeira, some do Tai Chi and some Filipino martial arts, some Aikido, some in boxing and one in Judo.

If you run a half decent wing Chun school then people will still like Wing Chun as their core art I find. I think the whole club benefits, the more things people know about fighting.

Regarding pure and applied, in mathematics, you must learn pure math first e.g. counting from 1 to 10 before you can learn about applied math e.g. filling out your income tax form. So after learning the pure stuff, you go and take courses in the applied stuff.

Likewise in Wing Chun you may study for example the theories of Tsui Shan Tin (Chu Shong Tin) but then you must study and research how to apply those theories in whatever area you are interested in. That area may include classroom chi sau problems, the street or MMA competition.

It is not unreasonable to think that many martial arts teachers are not specialists in everything. In these cases cross training in say grappling, boxing, knife and stick fighting etc. doesn't hurt. For our club in the 1990's we regularly attended seminars and workshops given by all kinds of masters. In the end we still ended up training mostly our Wing Chun but we were richer for the experience. Any decent fighter from any martial art discipline, can teach you something of value. For cross training to be useful, I think it is just a question of timing. When in your martial arts career is this useful? I think for beginners it is not useful. For many people it is just not in their interest to train other arts. For the competitive fighter, it is definitely to their advantage to do so.

Ray

chisauking
09-26-2005, 05:10 PM
I will just quickly say a few things and then the soap box is all yours...

Ernie sez: we still train thigh/ kicks /elbow and clinch after the core [basics] hand forms dummy weapons , we break basics and introduce problems try and pressure test

All good wing chun practitioners pressure test themselves, it's not exclusive to you. What ever you decide to train, there's still no edvidence that Gary Lam has incorporated any significant amount of thai boxing to what he's been teaching. For example, the 2 most dangerous weapon from thai boxing woulf probably be their low round kicks and the short elbows. But we still don't see gary teaching those techniques as part of his wing chun. Incidently, he even stated on one of his videos that although he likes the thai punches very much he no longer use it because he is doing wing chun now.



Ernie sez: if your goal is to fight , then you need to [ to the best of your potential and life style ] go out and gain experience , for some it's ring/matt time for some it's in the bars or streets , other visit other schools and compare

Yeah sure, I beleive in testing oneself, but you are kidding yourself if you think you can do that by simply cross training.


Ernie sez: so to sum up what Sifu Lam brought over from cross training [ you need to gain experience being in front of many people that really want to do you harm , this gives you a clear and honest view on most of the Bull$hit people are peddling . train at least up to a semi professional level so you understand before you speak about others and what is really out there ]

I have never intentionally spoken badly about anyone -- with the exception of the guy who caused so much controversy and disrepute to the wing chun family. What ever I have said has already been factually stated by the person in question themselves.


Ernie sez: WSL gained the understanding of honing simple motions , efficient body mechanics and direct yet mobile footwork , had he not boxed and fought he would have never had a measuring stick
this kept him from being enamored by all the fluff in wing Chun technique that so many get lost in that have no experience

So what you are saying is that for the rest of the wing chun practitioners that didn't box beforehand don't have mobile footwork? Has Gary Lam done any western boxing? Sure, cold-blooded fighting can act as a measuring stick for fighting methods, but boxing? Now whose talking nonsense?

Ernie sez: all three of these guys say the same thing chi sau is just a game , you do not chi sau , slt ,chum kui or bil jee your opponent , *YOU* fight him , the training is just a path to refine and test the knowledge you gain from personal first hand experience

Fight him with what? I don't know about you, but I would say that if a fighter had been training in wing chun for a considerble time, I think it's safe to say that they would fight with wing chun techniques. Guess what -- chisau tehniques and wing chun techniques are one and the same. The only question is, whether YOU can apply it in real combat. Further more, wasn't it Gary Lam who said HE would show people who mocked wing chun people for doing only chisau the effectiveness of chisau and how it was applied in fighting? Maybe you have not seen his videos?

Don't take what I have said to heart. After all, I have no real life and death experience, I have not fought with more than 4 people at any given time, and I only know how to CHISAU -- I don't even do that very well!

Matrix
09-26-2005, 05:28 PM
What generally attracts folks to cross-training is a pragmatism in their thinking; (what works? / what is functional? / what will be effective against skilled fighters?), -not an immature stubborness which would ever say; "I don't care what evidence you show me, I won't believe it." Lawerence, You seem to have misinterpreted the quote, or at least my interpretation of it. ;) The point, as I see it, is that you need to be open minded or no amount of evidence will be enough. Any position can be rationalized within a given context, that is why we have so much conflict in the world. If "the truth" were self-evident, then there would be no conflict. we would all see the truth and know it to be so.


Every MMA fighter looks for an edge, and would be happy to accept most any insight, training method, etc. that would increase their performance, -no matter where it originated from.Take out MMA to be more inclusive and I agree. Everyone is looking for an edge.


Yet, who can blame fighters for being skeptical about most Wing Chun? Nearly every time they ask for evidence of it's effectiveness, they are shown some lame, cooperative demo, or given an excuse why it can't used successfully in an MMA environment (e.g. - "It's too deadly.").Yes, the "too deadly"excuse is just that, an excuse. I don't blame anyone for being sceptical of Wing Chun. I however, am not. Fighters rely on brute strength, raw speed and technical skill to win. They may not be patient enough to take the longer path. It is in many ways counter-intuitive and quite frankly some people just like to pound others into submission.


Cross-trainers are not at all like kool-aid drinkers who already have their minds made up. -They actually weigh rational evidence before making decisions.Here's where we run into a problem. Once you starting trying to belittle those who disagree with you, you no longer have a constructive dialogue. In fact, I was quite sceptical of Wing Chun, or any kung fu for that matter when I first went to see a class. I only went on the high recommendation of an old friend. It was a great decision.

Ernie
09-26-2005, 05:33 PM
chi sau king
no need for soap boxes ;)

as for gary and what he does [ and how much he shows on video ] these are things i know since i have been filming in the demo or worked it with him [ first hand experience opps there goes that nasty term again ] :p

next time i'm in the clinch with him [which might be tonight ] and he's bombing me with elbows and knees , i'll be sure to tell him you said this was a no no :rolleyes:

he is older and much of the coaching in thai style wrecked havoc on his body , i know since i have become a human punching bag over the years and even though i keep fit , day in and day out of getting nailed and being a target for guys to work off , wears you down ,
so he only works these things with a select few but his last kicking DVD [which i'm not a real fan of he looked very tired on it had all his old thai combo's mixed in with wing chun , um maybe there is more then just video clips bro :cool: ]

oh and i know because i was in that one as well [whoopie ! ]

so speak on what you know it makes you seem smarter :p

now as for working of boxers and such , these people train in all power and speed lines of attack and are conditioned , so if your not out street fighting [were the guy can be a great fighter or a scrub ] then you need to get experience in the next best thing

as for the robotic image of using wing chun technique in a fight , sir go to a real boxing gym gym get in the ring and video your bad @ss self , then shut me up with that and i will give you all the props in the world :eek:

until then the speculation and personal perception game continues :D

as for simply cross training and chi sau , never said one or the other to me there both the same

one is a connected form the other is a live form , both allow me the room to refine and experience things develop questions based on my personal ability and current skill set

so if *you* really have a functional understanding of WC body mechanics and principle
the arena you practice in will not matter , you will be free not trapped by a game

really to sum up all the emotional nit picking
all i simply stated is go out and gain experience for yourself in what ever way you feel benifits you
find your path

as all of the great men we speak on did ,

as for my persoanl oppinion , yes i feel only the guys that went out and mixed it up and continue to do so or promote that form of training are worth anything
the rest are just parrots repeating a copy of what they were told

thank you for taking the time to enlighten me with your very well thought out and deep views
you are a very centered individual and i wish you the best :)

Edmund
09-26-2005, 09:24 PM
Any decent fighter from any martial art discipline, can teach you something of value. For cross training to be useful, I think it is just a question of timing. When in your martial arts career is this useful? I think for beginners it is not useful. For many people it is just not in their interest to train other arts. For the competitive fighter, it is definitely to their advantage to do so.


I think we are crossing a number of different definitions of the word "pure".

There's purity in the sense that it's completely concerned with theory.

And then there's purity in the sense that it's not influenced by crosstraining in any other style.

Edmund
09-26-2005, 09:41 PM
Yes, the "too deadly"excuse is just that, an excuse. I don't blame anyone for being sceptical of Wing Chun. I however, am not. Fighters rely on brute strength, raw speed and technical skill to win. They may not be patient enough to take the longer path. It is in many ways counter-intuitive and quite frankly some people just like to pound others into submission.


I think that's true. A fighter can win a fight by whatever means necessary. They don't always have to be that skilled in every aspect. Some can get by on their physical abilities or their specialty and don't need to be open-minded about learning other styles.

Tito Ortiz, for instance, never really went for a lot of submissions. I feel he probably didn't train them as much because they just didn't suit his rather inflexible strategy.

lawrenceofidaho
09-27-2005, 07:24 AM
Lawerence, You seem to have misinterpreted the quote, or at least my interpretation of it. The point, as I see it, is that you need to be open minded or no amount of evidence will be enough. Any position can be rationalized within a given context, that is why we have so much conflict in the world. If "the truth" were self-evident, then there would be no conflict. we would all see the truth and know it to be so.
Well said, Bill....... Since truth is not self-evident, then we should require evidence of it. (Evidence that will stand up to vigorous scrutiny.)


Take out MMA to be more inclusive and I agree. Everyone is looking for an edge.
I mistakenly thought you were implying that MMA / Cross-trainers refused to investigate anything about traditional arts, because they already made their minds up about all of them. Every fighter wants an edge, but some stay within the confines of their particular sport / art. -I made the point about MMA, because they are perhaps the most open-minded of all martial artists, and are willing to draw from any source that shows its functionality.


Here's where we run into a problem. Once you starting trying to belittle those who disagree with you, you no longer have a constructive dialogue. In fact, I was quite sceptical of Wing Chun, or any kung fu for that matter when I first went to see a class. I only went on the high recommendation of an old friend. It was a great decision.
It wasn't my intention to belittle those who disagree with me........ The quote you posted painted a picture of two types of folks who think they are opposite of each other, but in reality, are two sides of the same coin and very much alike. -I was merely trying to point out that MMA / Cross-trainers do not fit that characterization of the second example in the quote, and have little in common with a "person of faith" whose mind cannot change / grow / expand, or learn anything new.

-Lawrence

Fajing
09-27-2005, 08:30 AM
Everyone is looking for an edge.


Are we talkin AL MAR Shrike kind of edge, maybe Strider Karambit, or are we talkin H&K MP5 kind of edge? :eek: NOW THAT'S MMA! :p :p :p

Matrix
09-27-2005, 02:24 PM
I mistakenly thought you were implying that MMA / Cross-trainers refused to investigate anything about traditional arts, because they already made their minds up about all of them. Lawrence,

You may have confused me with someone else, no problem.
I really think everyone is looking for the an edge. New ways to train more efficiently and effectively. Too bad that no matter which way you go, it still requires a lot of hard work and dedication. ;) And as you said, if you are deluding yourself, then your house of cards will fall down under real pressure.


It wasn't my intention to belittle those who disagree with me........ Somehow, I already knew that. :) Thanks for the clarification.

Peace,