Forget the History, Forget the Politics

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun kung fu is going to become little more than a footnote in the annals of martial arts if it doesn't get past the obsession many people have with history, lineage, politics, families, wing chun "concepts" somehow making wing chun a superior art, etc...

and get down to the basics:

Is your martial art training (and wing chun training in particular) developing you into an efficient fighter, if you ever have to fight?

Or if you choose to spar or compete with other people?

Or if you choose to pass it on by teaching others, will you be capable of passing on fight efficiency to your students?

Are you being realistic in the training methods? Strengthening? Conditioning? Cardio? Mental focus? Breathing technique and efficiency under stress? Street awareness?

Are you paying attention to the kinds of fighting principles, strategies, and techniques that many other people are using these days?

Mixtures of boxing, kickboxing, Thai boxing, BJJ, wrestling, sambo, judo, san da, etc. ???

Because if your main concern focuses around wing chun history (or supposed history), the politics of lineage, ranks, and positions within and amoung families...

you're contributing to the footnote syndrome I alluded to earlier.


Comments?

[Almost A Ghost]

Wing Chun kung fu is going to become little more than a footnote in the annals of martial arts

That has more do with the system itself than the bickering or infighting over lineage. Don't get me wrong, I love Wing Chun, but it's not marketable, it's not flashy, and because of that the general public won't pay attention. You want to know something? That's fine with me, because look what happened to TKD.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That has more do with the system itself than the bickering or infighting over lineage. Don't get me wrong, I love Wing Chun, but it's not marketable, it's not flashy, and because of that the general public won't pay attention. You want to know something? That's fine with me, because look what happened to TKD.

Boxing is not flashy, neither is judo and certainly not BJJ.
Yet...

Fact is, if someone came on the scene with WC skills and started putting the kaibosh on people it would get everyone's attention.

[golgo]

I very new to WC (TWC). A month or so ago I was on the Bullshido forums trying to figure out what martial art to try. I was amazed at how much bashing there was in relation to Wing Chun - both internally (lineage vs. lineage) and externally (mma vs. Wing Chun). I quickly left due to the overall negative "feel" of those forums. More people there to bash than to help.

Still that did not deter me from trying Wing Chun. So far I love it. My Sifu does not bash the different lineages and hasn't really mentioned lineages since my "intro" day. My Sifu has trained in a bunch of MA in his past, so maybe this makes him more open minded. I dont know.

Before I started in WC, I had a friend at work who trains in some form of Mantis take a look at the school I was planning on attending. He told me to beware of the lineage wars. Knowing beforehand that they existed, I have pretty much tried to avoid paying real attention to them.

Besides, I don't know enough about my own lineage to make any argument one way or the other.:D I just try and stay out of the way. I am just happy to be training in a MA that I am enjoying.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I very new to WC (TWC). A month or so ago I was on the Bullshido forums trying to figure out what martial art to try. I was amazed at how much bashing there was in relation to Wing Chun - both internally (lineage vs. lineage) and externally (mma vs. Wing Chun). I quickly left due to the overall negative "feel" of those forums. More people there to bash than to help.

Still that did not deter me from trying Wing Chun. So far I love it. My Sifu does not bash the different lineages and hasn't really mentioned lineages since my "intro" day. My Sifu has trained in a bunch of MA in his past, so maybe this makes him more open minded. I dont know.

Before I started in WC, I had a friend at work who trains in some form of Mantis take a look at the school I was planning on attending. He told me to beware of the lineage wars. Knowing beforehand that they existed, I have pretty much tried to avoid paying real attention to them.

Besides, I don't know enough about my own lineage to make any argument one way or the other.:D I just try and stay out of the way. I am just happy to be training in a MA that I am enjoying.

Out of curiosity, if you saw so much WC bashing, why did you decide on WC after all?

[Wu Wei Wu]

There is a lack of extrinsic evidence that Wing Chun works.

Many other arts have verifiable means by which to assess their effectiveness, such as boxing, judo, BJJ etc.

Irrespective of functional modes of training, the downfall of Wing Chun will be the failure of Wing Chun men to;

a) pressure test;
b) adapt; and
c) evolve.

The assessment as to whether history or politics has any bearing on an individuals ability to use Wing Chun should be based on one question;

How does it improve me as a fighter?

[CFT]

This bickering isn't unique to Wing Chun, nor TCMA either.

[golgo]

Out of curiosity, if you saw so much WC bashing, why did you decide on WC after all?

OK, get ready for a long winded response: :D
I guess it was a number of things.

A) I am attracted to Kung Fu styles

B) I wasn't really picking a style per-se, but picking a school. Out of the schools in my immediate area there were 3 that seemed to be mainly geared towards adults - Krav Maga, Bujinkan (sp?) ninjitsu, and WC. After reading about the WC school, there were many aspects that drew me in:

The training methods seemed to be flexible and varied. If you wanted to do MMA style training (through a WC filter) they had that, if you wanted grappling classes they had that, if you wanted to mainly stick to low-contact you could do that, if you wanted to do full-contact sparring they had that too. I liked the fact that the school seemed very flexible to personal goals. I am personally very unsure of myself and did not want a place where i would have to be thrown into full-contact sparring right away. I haven't been in a fight in about 15 years, and therefore am not in any hurry to get in the ring. But I like the fact that if I changed my mind, those options were there. The ninjitsu school had some philosophy that was like "we don't spar so no one gets horribly maimed or killed." Ok.

Lastly, from what I had read and heard, the Sifu at the school a) was very well respected in the WC community (or at least TWC), b) seemed to have a reputation as a very capable fighter, c) he had trained in what seemed to be a dozen different MA and d) I just liked the guy when we met. I thought to myself "I want to train with this guy."

So far I have not regretted that decision.

The fact that it was WC or TWC played very little in the decision making process. I knew that I didnt want to do BJJ or any style that involves grappling. Not that I dont think it is important or valuable. I just prefer striking styles.

[golgo]

This bickering isn't unique to Wing Chun, nor TCMA either.

As was evident in those threads that were deleted earlier this week :eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

A) I am attracted to Kung Fu styles

Pervert. ;)


B) I wasn't really picking a style per-se, but picking a school. Out of the schools in my immediate area there were 3 that seemed to be mainly geared towards adults - Krav Maga, Bujinkan (sp?) ninjitsu, and WC.

Hmmm, given the choices...



The training methods seemed to be flexible and varied. If you wanted to do MMA style training (through a WC filter) they had that, if you wanted grappling classes they had that, if you wanted to mainly stick to low-contact you could do that, if you wanted to do full-contact sparring they had that too. I liked the fact that the school seemed very flexible to personal goals.

Sounds great to me.


The fact that it was WC or TWC played very little in the decision making process. I knew that I didnt want to do BJJ or any style that involves grappling. Not that I dont think it is important or valuable. I just prefer striking styles.

All the more reason to, eventually, do grappling by the way.

[golgo]

All the more reason to, eventually, do grappling by the way.

You are probably right. Who knows... right now I am just focusing on the basics though.

[sihing]

You are probably right. Who knows... right now I am just focusing on the basics though.

Dude, if it feels right for you, then it is right, period. People here have a tendency to want others to follow their way, the problem is the motivations are not the same. If you like to strike and that is your thing, then follow that path. I'm the same way, I like the striking, and haven't grappled since elementary school. It is not that I believe that I don't need grappling or whatever, as like you said there is value to it of course, but I don't want to train it and it's as simple as that. The fact is, we do the things we do based on how much enjoyment we get out of it. None of us here on this forum are fighting hand to hand on a regular basis to defend our lives, so really why is it necessary to be this so called "complete" fighter if one isn't fighting? For comps, yeah you need to be able to strike, takedown and grapple, this is the name of that game, it's an evolving sport and the one with more skills in more areas of combat will have an advantage, but most of us or not all of us are into MA to compete with it.

Regarding politics, lineage and the other things mentioned in this thread, for me I hate the politics, as this all just about agenda's and ego's. Everyone can learn from everyone, as we all have something to teach each other, it is just that one may value things differently than another. There's allot of BS in WC, that is for sure, people think it is like a magic pill, take it once and everything is peachy, only to realize that there is no magic to it at all, but rather it takes hard work, consistency and understanding of what one doing. When it comes to history, I sort of like it as it tells me where something came from, and how the process got to where it is today, but I realize it has nothing to do with how effective I will be at using the training in application. All one can really do is learn what they are being taught, train it hard and then make it your own, as no one can make you an effective Martial Artist, only you can do that for yourself.

James

[Phil Redmond]

Victor you must have been in my head. I was just going to write something similar. Here's the operative word in martial art.
Martial: adjective
Etymology: from Latin martialis of Mars, from Mart-, Mars
Definition:
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war : warlike
I take this definition seriously. I could care less where any Sifu learned his art, whether he made it up. I wouldn't care if someone learned from the back of a cereal box. What important is if it's been presure tested against people outside of your individual system are trying to hurt you. No some say that Wing Chun isn't made for competition. It's made for self defense or that it's too deadly for competitions....lol
Fighting in competitons is the best way legal way to pressure test what you train. It's either that or go out and start fights in the street. Yeah I know that everyone will say they've been in fights. But how many fights does the average person have? 10, 20, 30??? You can train full contact 100s of times and learn your strengths and weaknesses and train stamina without serious injury. I can see why Dale and Terences (sp)? points about resisting opponents. Yeah, I know It'll be the guys that don't fight that will respond that Wing Chun wasn't made from competitions or pressure testing . . . .lol
People who don't want to pressure there art should do something else. It's easy to sit at the keyboard and talk theory, history, theory, and lineage and not risk your a s s testing your art. Go to a boxing gym and work with a boxer. Find someone who does MMA and train with them. Do something real.

[El_Nastro]

I very new to WC (TWC). A month or so ago I was on the Bullshido forums trying to figure out what martial art to try. I was amazed at how much bashing there was in relation to Wing Chun - both internally (lineage vs. lineage) and externally (mma vs. Wing Chun). I quickly left due to the overall negative "feel" of those forums. More people there to bash than to help.

I'm right there with ya. When I first discovered Bullshido, I was excited about it. I liked the idea of a community devoted to debunking fakes and frauds, but it didn't take more than a few minutes to see that amongst the Bullshido-people, frauds & fakes are defined as "anyone who doesn't do muy thai & BJJ & compete in CAGE FIGHTS!"

That site isn't about martial arts at all, it's about MMA. Period. And if you aren't down with the MMA...You. Are. A. F@G. I quickly learned how gay I was for liking Wing Chun.

I mentioned this stuff in a different thread here, and someone was kind enough to point out the "irony of talkin' sh!t about people talkin' sh!t". Yeah...ok, but really...Bullshido is one big "you're-a-f@g"-flamewar and I don't think it's unreasonable on a discussion forum to discuss it.

[Museumtech]

Wing Chun kung fu is going to become little more than a footnote in the annals of martial arts if it doesn't get past the obsession many people have with history, lineage, politics, families, wing chun "concepts" somehow making wing chun a superior art, etc...

Victor,

Good post. Unfortunately it's probably going to require a lot of work and good will. I must say I have noticed this year that the people posting here have, in general, been more supportive than dismissive of each others style than in the past. I am noticing this in other WC forums sites to a degree as well. Moderators from some of the 'linage specific' sites for instance step in and say that this is not the place for politics.

In this information rich climate, reputations can be quickly tarnished. Golgo mentioned the Bullshido web-site. They do participate in a heap of WC bashing there but they operate on a 'show me the proof' basis. And there in lies the rub, as Wu Wei Wu and Phil have pointed out.



Because if your main concern focuses around wing chun history (or supposed history), the politics of lineage, ranks, and positions within and amoung families...

you're contributing to the footnote syndrome I alluded to earlier.

True also Victor.

But forgive the museum professional in me, I want to understand the full Wing Chun picture, understand when techniques originated and why and see how they have evolved and diverged. I am not, however, interested in this so I can say that mine is better than yours, just understand why it is different. Unfortunately these type of forum discussions invariable deteriorate into linage bashing or ****ing contests (can I say that here?) making it very hard to learn. This is a shame as we have a diverse potential of human resources on this forum.

Peter

[Museumtech]

****ing contests (can I say that here?)

Guess not.

[anerlich]

Boxing is not flashy, neither is judo and certainly not BJJ.

You haven't seen my new Keiko gi. and, the patches ...:cool:

[Wu Wei Wu]

I wrote the following earlier:

Irrespective of functional modes of training, the downfall of Wing Chun will be the failure of Wing Chun men to;

a) pressure test;
b) adapt; and
c) evolve.

This particular debate isn't decrying the validity of historical accuracy. I am sure most people have no problem providing some kind of acknowledgment to the founders and the underlying traditions.

The issue seems to be more one of preservation. There are those who cling onto the fabric of history claiming the art as being unbeatable and cite as their examples the mythical exploits of Gung Fu men from a bygone era.

And there are those who seek empirical verification and are only prepared to don Wing Chun armour that has been battle tested.

This issue is further compounded by the preservationists who complain that those who test, evolve and adapt, depart too far from the system for them to continue to call themselves Wing Chun men.


Suki Gosal

[Museumtech]

You haven't seen my new Keiko gi. and, the patches ...:cool:

Wear it to class Wednesday the 3rd Dec. I hope to fly up and see Rick. I'll take a photo and post it here for adjudication.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Oh no, Anerlich in his new gi...:eek: Please don't post a picture of that on this forum! The wing chun gods will freak out! :p :rolleyes:

As for this:

"a) pressure test;
b) adapt; and
c) evolve."

***THAT is the key, alright.

.......................................

And it was followed by this:

"There are those who cling onto the fabric of history claiming the art as being unbeatable and cite as their examples the mythical exploits of Gung Fu men from a bygone era."

***CONTRIBUTING to the footnote syndrome.

......................................

And this:

"And there are those who seek empirical verification and are only prepared to don Wing Chun armour that has been battle tested."

***AFTER 3+ decades in wing chun, I've become one of these people. No more time to waste on stuff that doesn't work.

....................................

And this:

"This issue is further compounded by the preservationists who complain that those who test, evolve and adapt, depart too far from the system for them to continue to call themselves Wing Chun men."

***AND these are the people who will lead the way into the land of HISTORICAL FOOTNOTES.

[couch]

Oh no, Anerlich in his new gi...:eek: Please don't post a picture of that on this forum! The wing chun gods will freak out! :p :rolleyes:


Wing Chun people don't wear gi's? Do they? Sheeot. Gotta change the track pants and adidias shirts in for a new gi. D@mn. And here I thought Impossible Is Nothing.

LOL!

[anerlich]

Wing Chun people don't wear gi's?

They do when they take BJJ classes for gi.

Museumtech, I'm not normally there on Wednesdays (BJJ night at another academy) but I'll see what I can do. I AM there on Thursdays.

On the original subject, IMO WC has to have the forms, bummy, chi sao (and kiu sao, however you define that) and the traditional weapons so that it remains a TCMA. Without those it ceases to be WC.

That said, you don't always have to do it exactly the way your master and their master said. This stuff is supposed to be a framework for contructive thought, not something to snuff it out.

[couch]

They do when they take BJJ classes for gi.

I know this. Guess my sarcasm-fu is weak. LOL

[Mr Punch]

On the original subject, IMO WC has to have the forms, bummy, chi sao (and kiu sao, however you define that) and the traditional weapons so that it remains a TCMA. Without those it ceases to be WC...There's no bummy in my wing chun! :eek:

BTW, I forgot the history and I forgot the politics. Does that mean I don't need to read this thread? :p :D

[anerlich]

There's no bummy in my wing chun!

My condolences :D

[canglong]

Forget the History, Forget the Politics
That's a hard thing to do and IMO made increasingly harder with each new thread reminding people of the problems of history and politics. Might be easier to just not harbor resentment towards others whose history and politics differ from yours.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Might even be easier if ALL the history and politics were just put aside and people got back to the basics as to what works and what doesn't in a martial setting...

as we don't need history lessons or individual political chest-beating to see what's what when the fighting/sparring/rolling is live.

[Toby]

... into linage bashing or ****ing contests (can I say that here?) ...Pissing? Works for me :D .

[canglong]

Might even be easier if ALL the history and politics were just put aside and people got back to the basics as to what works and what doesn't in a martial setting...
You left out and just focus on your own training.

as we don't need history lessons or individual political chest-beating to see what's what when the fighting/sparring/rolling is live. "we" sounds like there is either some history or politics behind that.

[Mr Punch]

... "we" sounds like there is either some history or politics behind that.LOLorama... 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

[Museumtech]

****ing? Works for me :D .

When I tried it ****ing turned into ****ing. Is it the use of a capital P?

Peter

[JPinAZ]

Might even be easier if ALL the history and politics were just put aside and people got back to the basics as to what works and what doesn't in a martial setting...

as we don't need history lessons or individual political chest-beating to see what's what when the fighting/sparring/rolling is live.

This is funny, are you saying your training became easier when you started ignoring history? How does studying history, culture, etc effect your training in any way? They are 2 seperate things!

Personally, I find the history aspect of WC to be quite interesting! I also think it enriches the learning experience. But I don't think anyone is silly enough to think that it makes thier fighting abilities any better. Are you saying I should give it up and then magically my fighting will improve?
If not, what do you care if people want to study history and share what they've found?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Are you saying I should give it up and then magically my fighting will improve?
If not, what do you care if people want to study history and share what they've found?"


***WHAT I'm saying is that if most of the time and energy so many people spend getting involved in the history, lineage, and politics was spent training instead....

yeah, fighting abilities would improve.

It's just basic common sense.

[JPinAZ]

***WHAT I'm saying is that if most of the time and energy so many people spend getting involved in the history, lineage, and politics was spent training instead....

yeah, fighting abilities would improve.

It's just basic common sense.

So what you are saying is that instead of having any other hobbies or interests, if we're going to be students of WC, we should spend every free moment in phisical training and forget the rest of our lives.
If that's the case then we should never see you here again right? How much different is time spent on these forums vs. time spent learning history..

Do you even think these things through when you write them?? :rolleyes:

[SoCo KungFu]

But I don't think anyone is silly enough to think that it makes thier fighting abilities any better.

To the contrary, I think an exceeding majority actual are silly enough to think just that.

[Ultimatewingchun]

That's not even worth a response, JP...

[hhe]

Victor, the time you spend reading, writing, and debating online is enough time to get a Ph D in history or politics and extra time for training.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Attacking me does not negate the premise of this thread.

I don't attend seminar-after-seminar, class-after-class, meeting-after-meeting, read book-after-book, article-after-article....and yes, get involved in thread-after-thread...

devoted to wing chun history.

Which is what many people can't seem to get enough of.

And the lineage and politics discussions and debates have grown very old - so I try to avoid them as much as possible at this point.

My primary interest has always been either actually doing, (ie.- as in training), or discussing various fighting methods, training methods, strategies, principles, and techniques THAT WORK under pressure.

And the premise of this thread is that if you call yourself a wing chun man and you're spending a great deal of your time still doing the history and politics thing as we approach 2009...

seminars, classes, books, articles, discussions, meetings, debates, etc...

you're helping wing chun become antiquated and irrelevant. There's really no getting around that fact anymore. For anybody. Regardless of what lineage they come from. Or what is the history (or supposed history) of that lineage...or anything else...the politics of who's-who, or the alleged unbeatable quality of the wing chun method in question, etc.

Because wing chun is being left behind. The martial arts world has taken a giant leap forward within the last 15 years or so - and wing chun, for the most part, is watching from the sidelines.

Why?

Because instead of spending most of their time pressure testing to find out what wing chun works and what doesn't - people are engaging in history lessons and trying to figure out (and shuffle) the politics of who's who.

[canglong]

And the lineage and politics discussions and debates have grown very old - so I try to avoid them as much as possible at this point.
That would explain why you started this thread. :rolleyes:

[golgo]

The martial arts world has taken a giant leap forward within the last 15 years or so

Has it though? In terms of controlled competitions I would agree with this (such as MMA). In terms of real pressure testing? I would think martial arts was at its peak when it was actually the primary means of killing someone in war, i.e. centuries ago (or less, depending on the civilization). I think modern MA still laggs way behind the true peak of MA. Even with the advances of the past 15 years or so I believe it still pales in comparison.

Now, in terms of the past 50 years it is probably at its peak. I would assume that the martial arts craze over the last half-century or so watered down the arts (as well as its secondary or tertiary role in war-time combat).

Please don't take this to mean that I think WC is too deadly of an art to pressure test, not meant for competitions, etc. or that competitions aren't valid forms of pressure testing. I am just saying that the true peak of martial arts was during a time when more people needed to use martial arts to survive.

[m1k3]

Has it though? In terms of controlled competitions I would agree with this (such as MMA). In terms of real pressure testing? I would think martial arts was at its peak when it was actually the primary means of killing someone in war, i.e. centuries ago (or less, depending on the civilization). I think modern MA still laggs way behind the true peak of MA. Even with the advances of the past 15 years or so I believe it still pales in comparison.

Now, in terms of the past 50 years it is probably at its peak. I would assume that the martial arts craze over the last half-century or so watered down the arts (as well as its secondary or tertiary role in war-time combat).

Please don't take this to mean that I think WC is too deadly of an art to pressure test, not meant for competitions, etc. or that competitions aren't valid forms of pressure testing. I am just saying that the true peak of martial arts was during a time when more people needed to use martial arts to survive.

There is a big difference between the skills used by a solider and those used by an individual.

That difference is fighting as part of a unit. Melee style fighting is more the thing of movies and primitive cultures. Societies that had standing armies trained their armies to move and fight as part of a larger unit.

The ability to march long distances, set camp, build fortifications and fight in formation would be valued much higher than individual dueling skills, especially unarmed skills.

So, it is highly unlikely that unarmed fighting skills were developed and showcased during combat.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There is a big difference between the skills used by a solider and those used by an individual.

That difference is fighting as part of a unit. Melee style fighting is more the thing of movies and primitive cultures. Societies that had standing armies trained their armies to move and fight as part of a larger unit.

The ability to march long distances, set camp, build fortifications and fight in formation would be valued much higher than individual dueling skills, especially unarmed skills.

So, it is highly unlikely that unarmed fighting skills were developed and showcased during combat.

Even nowadays, many battles "degenerate" into CQB, some actually start that way.
Fact is, if you are gonna train a soldier or warrior to fight, you start with one-on-one skills and work from there.
As the old saying goes, if you can't beat one...

[m1k3]

Even nowadays, many battles "degenerate" into CQB, some actually start that way.
Fact is, if you are gonna train a soldier or warrior to fight, you start with one-on-one skills and work from there.
As the old saying goes, if you can't beat one...

No, they don't. And for training, at least in the Marines when I was in the most important thing is being able to shoot, and team work, not individual skills. Gung Ho! means work together. Thats why all the close order drill, and group pt and the platoon being punished for the actions of an individual. The very first things they teach you in boot camp is to become part of a team, your platoon. The unit is all. Until you graduate there are no individual awards there are only awards for the platoon. You win or lose as a unit.

There were NO individuals in my beloved Marine Corps. Oohrah!

MCMAP and bayonet fighting and Army Combatives are there as a fail safe not as a primary fighting skill. They are also used to develop toughness and the warrior spirit of attack and aggression.

CQC, especially hand to hand is the exception and an unwanted exception in combat. According to the guy who developed the Army combatives program its primary use is to allow a solider to survive long enough until his buddies with guns get there.

The armies that were most successful were the ones that fought as disciplined units, not as a howling mob.

Very much like sports. A team of disciplined athletes working together can often defeat a group of stars playing as individuals.

[golgo]

There is a big difference between the skills used by a solider and those used by an individual.

That difference is fighting as part of a unit. Melee style fighting is more the thing of movies and primitive cultures. Societies that had standing armies trained their armies to move and fight as part of a larger unit.

The ability to march long distances, set camp, build fortifications and fight in formation would be valued much higher than individual dueling skills, especially unarmed skills.

So, it is highly unlikely that unarmed fighting skills were developed and showcased during combat.

Martial arts does not equal unarmed. Are there any styles/systems of kung fu that did not originally include weapon training? This is not a rhetorical question - I genuinely do not know. I am assuming the answer is no however.

I still find it hard to believe that individual skill did not play a role in being able to survive on a battlefield. Yes, strategy, tatctics and leadership play a larger role, especially in the overall outcome of the battle, but to say individual skill has a minor role when it comes to individual survival - well, I don't really agree with this notion.


=
The armies that were most successful were the ones that fought as disciplined units, not as a howling mob.

Very much like sports. A team of disciplined athletes working together can often defeat a group of stars playing as individuals.

Yeah, but the Chicago Bulls with the arguably greatest individual player to ever grace the NBA... they built a dynasty... oh, except for the year he went and played baseball.

The Lakers with Kobe & Shaq - arguably the best 2 players in the game - dynasty.

The Yankees in the 90's (and their butt-load of talent)- dynasty

And the list could go on...

So its hard to argue that individual skill plays no part in the success of a franchise. It doesn't guarantee success, mind you (i.e. recent Yankees). This is why you see so few dynasties once salary caps are put into place - it stops teams from being able to keep all of the best individual players.

So either you picked a bad analogy, or you proved the opposite point you were trying to make.

[stonecrusher69]

Attacking me does not negate the premise of this thread.

I don't attend seminar-after-seminar, class-after-class, meeting-after-meeting, read book-after-book, article-after-article....and yes, get involved in thread-after-thread...

devoted to wing chun history.

Which is what many people can't seem to get enough of.

And the lineage and politics discussions and debates have grown very old - so I try to avoid them as much as possible at this point.

My primary interest has always been either actually doing, (ie.- as in training), or discussing various fighting methods, training methods, strategies, principles, and techniques THAT WORK under pressure.

And the premise of this thread is that if you call yourself a wing chun man and you're spending a great deal of your time still doing the history and politics thing as we approach 2009...

seminars, classes, books, articles, discussions, meetings, debates, etc...

you're helping wing chun become antiquated and irrelevant. There's really no getting around that fact anymore. For anybody. Regardless of what lineage they come from. Or what is the history (or supposed history) of that lineage...or anything else...the politics of who's-who, or the alleged unbeatable quality of the wing chun method in question, etc.

Because wing chun is being left behind. The martial arts world has taken a giant leap forward within the last 15 years or so - and wing chun, for the most part, is watching from the sidelines.

Why?

Because instead of spending most of their time pressure testing to find out what wing chun works and what doesn't - people are engaging in history lessons and trying to figure out (and shuffle) the politics of who's who.


I think being knowledgeable about ones art is time well spent. It does not make you a better fighter per se but M.A. is not all about fighting. There is more to it then that.

[m1k3]

Ok, lets try this.

Using sword fighting as an example.

The skills that make you an exceptional duelist are not necessarily the skills which will make you a good foot solider.

When fighting as part of a unit you need to depend on the person next to you, and behind you and in front of you doing their jobs or else you might die, no matter how good your skills as a swordsman. If a flight of arrows comes in and everyone raises their shield except the guy in front of you, you could die. If you are expecting the solider to your right to be providing shield coverage for you in the formation and he doesn't you could die. In this type of situation your skills, no matter how good, are not going to be enough.

The point I am trying to make is that the skill sets required for fighting as an individual and fighting as part of a unit are different. So saying MA skills now are not as good as the battlefield skills of the past is an invalid argument. Individual Kung Fu (CQC0 skills would most likely help you on that type of battlefield but would be far from your primary skill set. Your ability to integrate into a well functioning unit would be much more important. Same as the battlefield of today.

As for the exceptional individual or two carrying the team sure that happens, but none of those teams went undefeated.

A basketball team has 5 players playing, a baseball team has 9 players playing. The odds of a few exceptional individuals carrying the day when there are 200.000 fighting is a lot smaller. It does happen though, that's why they have medals. They are often given posthumously though.

[anerlich]

CQC skills are arguably better for police or civilan security, and even in those spheres numbers and coordination of teams are often more important.

One of my BJJ instructors occasionally gets a retired cop who is highly experienced in police restrain and arrest procedures in for a seminar. He's over 80, but I wouldn't even consider trying to resist his arrest. He's got some simple but diabolically effective and painful tactics and techniques. Fascinating stuff.

I'm not even sure that most of the popular MA's has extensive use on the battlefield, despite the uterrings of some self proclaimed historians. No one ever fought a war with karate or chi sao, that's for sure. Still more a self-defense, surprise attack or assassination situation, and not in battlefield-size numbers.

I personally regard the current environment with its emphasis on sportfighting and results to be better than many of the alternatives, e.g. issuing challenges and performing ambushes at seminars, talking a good fight and about how your techniques are too deadly to pressure test and how crap those of your business rivals are, adherence to unscientific and physically unsound training methods, adherence to outmoded and arguably primitive cultural traditions, attitudes ,etc., acting like some sort of demigod and treating your students like slaves or retards, and so on.

Evolution isn't about "advancement", it's about adaptation to prevailing conditions. Man is not the "pinnacle" of evolution, and arguably bacteria are far more successful than we will ever be. Stephen Jay Gould wrote about this- I can't remeber the name of the book, though it's the one where he also discussess ate great length the reasons why baseball batting averages aren't as high as they used to be, even though technilogy and training methods have vastly improved.

In general, science is about continuous experimentation, change, and improvement. Any practice that remains unchanged after 200 years, whether developed on a Chinese battlefield or anywhere else, is unlikely to have ever been treated to scentific examination, and even less likely to be as fit for purpose in current times as it would be otherwise.

I think studying history is a respectable endeavour. Misusing your "research" to claim some sort of extra respectablity, purity, efficacy and gain a related marketing advantage for what you do in an arena when performance is the major criterion, IS an enormous waste of time that could certainly be better spent.

[Wu Wei Wu]

"I personally regard the current environment with its emphasis on sportfighting and results to be better than many of the alternatives"

Very good last post.

Suki

[golgo]

Ok, lets try this.

Using sword fighting as an example.

The skills that make you an exceptional duelist are not necessarily the skills which will make you a good foot solider.


No, but if your means of fighting requires you to wield a sword to kill/defend yourself in battle, and you train every day to use a sword - well, I would surmise that you are going to have better technique at wielding said sword than someone in modern times who trains it as a part of their art, but never has any application to use it in a real life situation.





When fighting as part of a unit you need to depend on the person next to you, and behind you and in front of you doing their jobs or else you might die, no matter how good your skills as a swordsman. If a flight of arrows comes in and everyone raises their shield except the guy in front of you, you could die. If you are expecting the solider to your right to be providing shield coverage for you in the formation and he doesn't you could die. In this type of situation your skills, no matter how good, are not going to be enough.


Take it to a futuristic/hypothetical example - Lets assume in the future no one uses firearms in war anymore - sexy female robots fight our battles for us. People still train marksmanship for hobby/self defense purposes. As you said before, even today tactics, teamwork, etc. are more important that individual skill. Would you still argue that people in the future would have a higher degree of marksmanship/ranged combat skills?

I just don't believe this would be true.



As for the exceptional individual or two carrying the team sure that happens, but none of those teams went undefeated.

A basketball team has 5 players playing, a baseball team has 9 players playing. The odds of a few exceptional individuals carrying the day when there are 200.000 fighting is a lot smaller. It does happen though, that's why they have medals. They are often given posthumously though.

And the Roman, Spartan, Mongol, United States, German, Carthaginian, and Alexandrian armies didn't win every single battle either.

I think we can agree that comparing sports to war is a just bad analogy. Just ask Kellan Winslow Jr..

[anerlich]

No, but if your means of fighting requires you to wield a sword to kill/defend yourself in battle, and you train every day to use a sword - well, I would surmise that you are going to have better technique at wielding said sword than someone in modern times who trains it as a part of their art,

Assuming that you live long enough to develop said skill.

This isn't borne out by history in any case. Miyamoto Musashi, not exactly a slouch at fencing in a time when it WAS life or death, lamented the state of martial art instruction in his time, talking about "indoor schools", the practice of tachniques which would never stand up under real pressure, etc. It's in the Book of Five Rings IIRC.

It sounds like some things have never changed.

[golgo]

Assuming that you live long enough to develop said skill.


That's the ultimate in combat evolution, baby! Survival of the fittest!:p



This isn't borne out by history in any case. Miyamoto Musashi, not exactly a slouch at fencing in a time when it WAS life or death, lamented the state of martial art instruction in his time, talking about "indoor schools", the practice of tachniques which would never stand up under real pressure, etc. It's in the Book of Five Rings IIRC.

It sounds like some things have never changed.

Well, I read in the Three Kingdoms that Lu Bu destroyed thousands of men with his incredible martial skills. ;)

[golgo]

Miyamoto Musashi, not exactly a slouch at fencing in a time when it WAS life or death, lamented the state of martial art instruction in his time, talking about "indoor schools", the practice of tachniques which would never stand up under real pressure, etc. It's in the Book of Five Rings IIRC.

It sounds like some things have never changed.

Please dont blast me for using Wikipedia as a source, but I am not writing a research paper. From the Wikipedia page on The Book of Five Rings:

"He also continually makes the point that the understandings expressed in the book are important for combat on any scale, whether a one-on-one duel or a massive battle."

I have not read the book. Is this not true?

[m1k3]

I think we can agree that comparing sports to war is a just bad analogy. Just ask Kellan Winslow Jr..

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Justifying your kung fu skills because your art may or may not have been used on some ancient battlefield is bogus.

[golgo]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Justifying your kung fu skills because your art may or may not have been used on some ancient battlefield is bogus.

Well, that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. My point was that ancient martial artists were better because it was trained and tested on the battlefield, where mistakes meant the difference between life or death - and not a tap out or a bloody nose. Thats not to say people don't use their martial arts to defend themselves in life or death situations these days, but it is just on a much smaller scale. I am also not trying to say that current pro martial artists are unskilled.

I have no misconceptions that the deeds of ancient martial artists on the battlefield justify my art or my skills (or lackthereof :D). Or even, that those skills are necessarily applicable in today's world.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, they don't. And for training, at least in the Marines when I was in the most important thing is being able to shoot, and team work, not individual skills. Gung Ho! means work together. Thats why all the close order drill, and group pt and the platoon being punished for the actions of an individual. The very first things they teach you in boot camp is to become part of a team, your platoon. The unit is all. Until you graduate there are no individual awards there are only awards for the platoon. You win or lose as a unit.

There were NO individuals in my beloved Marine Corps. Oohrah!

MCMAP and bayonet fighting and Army Combatives are there as a fail safe not as a primary fighting skill. They are also used to develop toughness and the warrior spirit of attack and aggression.

CQC, especially hand to hand is the exception and an unwanted exception in combat. According to the guy who developed the Army combatives program its primary use is to allow a solider to survive long enough until his buddies with guns get there.

The armies that were most successful were the ones that fought as disciplined units, not as a howling mob.

Very much like sports. A team of disciplined athletes working together can often defeat a group of stars playing as individuals.

My mileage, and that of others that have also served, varies from yours.
To each their own.
Semper Fi.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Assuming that you live long enough to develop said skill.

This isn't borne out by history in any case. Miyamoto Musashi, not exactly a slouch at fencing in a time when it WAS life or death, lamented the state of martial art instruction in his time, talking about "indoor schools", the practice of tachniques which would never stand up under real pressure, etc. It's in the Book of Five Rings IIRC.

It sounds like some things have never changed.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[anerlich]

Please dont blast me for using Wikipedia as a source, but I am not writing a research paper. From the Wikipedia page on The Book of Five Rings:

"He also continually makes the point that the understandings expressed in the book are important for combat on any scale, whether a one-on-one duel or a massive battle."

I have not read the book. Is this not true?


Yeah, but WTF does that have to do with the point I was discussing (martial arts instruction having zip to do with reality even in feudal Japan) and the reference I made to the book?

I won't blast you for using Wikipedia, but you lose major points for using irrelevant material from a book you haven't read in support of whatever point you are trying to make.

It is a major work in MA and more, and you probably should read it and the Art of War before posting on martial strategy.

[golgo]

Yeah, but WTF does that have to do with the point I was discussing (martial arts instruction having zip to do with reality even in feudal Japan) and the reference I made to the book?

I won't blast you for using Wikipedia, but you lose major points for using irrelevant material from a book you haven't read in support of whatever point you are trying to make.

It is a major work in MA and more, and you probably should read it and the Art of War before posting on martial strategy.

Now you are just being disrespectful.

A) I am not posting on martial strategy. I am posting on martial skill
B) No, I have not read the Book of Five Rings, but I have read the Art of War about a dozen times and it has been a fixture on my bookshelf for close to 20 years. You brought up the book, not me. Get off your high horse.
C) Obviously you dont undestand the point I was trying to make. I am not going to waste my time repeating it (or engaging in this thread any longer).
D) Someone was making the point that the skills for individual combat were completely different from the skills of battlefield combat. Hence the quote...

[SoCo KungFu]

No, they don't. And for training, at least in the Marines when I was in the most important thing is being able to shoot, and team work, not individual skills. Gung Ho! means work together. Thats why all the close order drill, and group pt and the platoon being punished for the actions of an individual. The very first things they teach you in boot camp is to become part of a team, your platoon. The unit is all. Until you graduate there are no individual awards there are only awards for the platoon. You win or lose as a unit.

There were NO individuals in my beloved Marine Corps. Oohrah!

MCMAP and bayonet fighting and Army Combatives are there as a fail safe not as a primary fighting skill. They are also used to develop toughness and the warrior spirit of attack and aggression.

CQC, especially hand to hand is the exception and an unwanted exception in combat. According to the guy who developed the Army combatives program its primary use is to allow a solider to survive long enough until his buddies with guns get there.

The armies that were most successful were the ones that fought as disciplined units, not as a howling mob.

Very much like sports. A team of disciplined athletes working together can often defeat a group of stars playing as individuals.



My mileage, and that of others that have also served, varies from yours.
To each their own.
Semper Fi.

Training is tailored to meet the mission. Given that you two had vastly different mission parameters (infantry vs sniper) your training emphasis is going to be different to meet that need.

My training is different than both of you due to being a medic. My training is also different from most medics due to being operational and tagged as a "high risk of capture" personnel.

[anerlich]

I am not going to waste my time repeating it (or engaging in this thread any longer).


Sounds good.

[Hendrik]

History for me, it is just a vehicle to probe what is WCK and how deep the art of WCK has been. HIstory is a track record.



Politics for me , It cannot be avoidable because everyone/human, me include, has the desire to control others and desire to lead disregard of one's ability.

[Matrix]

Politics for me , It cannot be avoidable because everyone/human, me include, has the desire to control others and desire to lead disregard of one's ability.So you're saying you cannot control yourself?

[Hendrik]

So you're saying you cannot control yourself?

how do you relate this question to my post above?

[Matrix]

How do you surrender what you cannot control?

When you say something is unavoidable, you are saying you are not in control. You say you want to control others, to lead and yet you cannot see that your desire to control others is wrong. Suspend that desire to control, and see and hear what others are telling you. You might learn something.

Peace,
Bill

[Hendrik]

How do you surrender what you cannot control?

When you say something is unavoidable, you are saying you are not in control.

You say you want to control others, to lead and yet you cannot see that your desire to control others is wrong.

Suspend that desire to control, and see and hear what others are telling you. You might learn something.

Peace,
Bill


Great logical thinking, have you try it ? and how does it works out for you?





How do you surrender what you cannot control? ----

For me, the WCK kuen kuit has shown clearly. " comes accept, Goes let it go back.... using silence to lead action".

That is surrender and flow without needs to control. This is a part of Chinese Daoism culture of Wu-wei wu-pu-wei. (Doing nothing but nothing left undone.).

http://daohead.com/wuwei.html


Thus, to forget history and politics one needs to forget oneself first.

[Matrix]

Great logical thinking, have you try it ? and how does it works out for you?. Yes, it works well. Thank you for asking. It's not always easy, but with time it seems to get better. Work in progress......


For me, the WCK kuen kuit has shown clearly. " comes accept, Goes let it go back.... using silence to lead action".It's a great saying. Have you tried it? ;)

[Hendrik]

It's a great saying. Have you tried it? ;)

As I updated my post above, it is an ancient chinese culture, many have tried it over the passed hundreds of years, thus, it is still exist today.

[Hendrik]

It's a great saying. Have you tried it? ;)

As I updated my post above, it is an ancient chinese culture, many have tried it over the passed hundreds of years and still practiced today, thus, it is exist today. It is a part of reality and not subject to my experience.

[Matrix]

It is a part of reality and not subject to my experience.Well I guess that says it all, doesn't it.
Thank you,
Bill

[Ultimatewingchun]

Leave it to Hendrik to start talking about ancient Chinese culture and his inability to stop trying to control other people on a thread entitled: "Forget the History, Forget the Politics"...:rolleyes:


What a forum! :cool:

[anerlich]

Politics for me , It cannot be avoidable because everyone/human, me include, has the desire to control others and desire to lead disregard of one's ability.


It is only arguable that everyone wants to control others, and certainly not true that everyone has trhe desire to lead.

[Hendrik]

Leave it to Hendrik to start talking about ancient Chinese culture and his inability to stop trying to control other people on a thread entitled: "Forget the History, Forget the Politics"...:rolleyes:


What a forum! :cool:


There is a different between

a, presenting and pointing toward what exist in the chinese culture and different alternative of living

and,

b, getting into the egoistic self righteous loop of "you are the bad guy, you do it to me, ....."



As a human, it takes time to experience and learn both.

However, those who dont know history will not be able to know what is the different between the WCK ancestors' culture compare with today's pop believe of egoistic self righteous looping .


Thus, It is not a "forget the History " issue, what needs to be solve is an Educational issue. To educate people upto the level of knowing what is going on and when to and when not to use history.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I say it is a "forget the history" issue.

Reveling in ancient Chinese history and culture is what is holding CMA in general and wing chun in particular back.

If one is studying wing chun because it is A MARTIAL ART - then one needs to get with the training methods and strategies of the 21ft century - because this is where you are.

If on the other hand the "ancient Chinese Culture and history thing" is a means of TRYING TO CONTROL PEOPLE...

you can stick it, because I'm not the least bit interested. And I suspect that the same applies to many people.

[JPinAZ]

Vic, curious what you'd have to say regarding this clip at a workshop:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ3XpvFA4h0&feature=related

Personally, I think this is a cool clip and I find the information very interesting! I think it's great to hear perspectives of history from other WC families/lineages to go along with training (or in general over a cup of tea).
Just wondering if you think all this 'history talk' at a workshop is a big waste of time as well? Or if this is also a means of 'controlling people'? :rolleyes:

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Any historical lecture component of a workshop that is more than 5 minutes long is a ripoff unless the lecture is advertised ahead of time.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Vic, curious what you'd have to say regarding this clip at a workshop..." (JP)


***HERE'S what I have to say about that. Have attended countless William Cheung public seminars over the last 25+ years (as well as numerous private seminars, lunches, dinners, have had private lessons, etc.)...

and I can say categorically that 99% of William Cheung's seminars, lessons, etc. are spent actually doing wing chun.

Do I have a problem with the other 1%? Of course not. A certain amount of "history" is relevant.

But it's a question of how much, now isn't it?!

And the theme of this thread is that too many people spent an inordinate amount of time going over the history, and therefore, by necessity, the politics of wing chun. Around and around, again and again.

Instead of actually doing it.

[t_niehoff]

In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as "history" -- legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. -- is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to "forget WCK history", but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. "History" -- whether genuine or not -- does not provide validation for one's theories (which is for the most part how WCK "history" is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results.

[Vajramusti]

Agree with it as currently stated.

joy Chaudhuri

[JPinAZ]

and I can say categorically that 99% of William Cheung's seminars, lessons, etc. are spent actually doing wing chun.

Being that it's an 8:35 clip, if that's just 1% of the workshop, it must have been one heckova long workshop ;)

Now, I'd agree with anyone that says you should spend a good amount of time training physically, that's a no-brainer. And it seems we both agree history has it's place, the question indeed is: how much?
Who's to say? Some people prefer just to train with the time they have, or they only have an hour a day, so that's all they even have time for. Good for them!
Then, there's some people that devote thier whole lives to MA's, WC or otherwise (meaning, it's thier only job). And some even go the extra mile to travel the world to learn everything they can about the art they loves. Who are we to say what is too much? From which perspective? Just yours? Just mine?

If someone has the recourses and time to train and teach full-time as well as research, write, visit with different lines, families, lineages, etc to both learn the physical as well as the history, stories, whatever, good for them too!


And the theme of this thread is that too many people spent an inordinate amount of time going over the history, and therefore, by necessity, the politics of wing chun. Around and around, again and again.

Instead of actually doing it.

Who are these 'too many people' you talk about anyway?

fwiw, I don't see history and politics necessarily going hand-and-hand unless one's ego gets involved. Say I go talk to person A from a never-heard-of line of WC and they give me a background story that is different or contradicts person B's. And person B gets all upset because I share the story. The problem isn't on me, and it's not on person A, it's on person B. Is B right and A wrong? Is the middle man at fault for sharing findings?

As I see it, the theme of this thread only promotes more politics. 'Specially if we think about the real reason this thread was created ;)
Want to encourage positivity? I think that's going to happen when people let go thier egos and forget trying to say what's right/wrong, or who spends too much time doing what, and worrying about what everyong else is doing. IMO, that's politics!

[JPinAZ]

In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as "history" -- legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. -- is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to "forget WCK history", but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

Good point. Funny you use the words 'genuine' or 'true'. How do you plan to discern what is or isn't? Or even suggest one do that? please continue..


But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. "History" -- whether genuine or not -- does not provide validation for one's theories (which is for the most part how WCK "history" is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results.

You're mixing several seperate things together and treating them as one. History is just that - history. Then you talk about validating theories. But then finish talking about fighting or training methods and results. Are you trying to say that the only way to validate history is through physical results? Historical topics (fact or otherwise) don't really have anything to do with results from training. Kinda sill if you ask me.

[t_niehoff]

Good point. Funny you use the words 'genuine' or 'true'. How do you plan to discern what is or isn't? Or even suggest one do that? please continue..


It's not "funny" (I suppose you mean in the "odd" sense) that I use such words -- how can something be called history that didn't genuinely happen or isn't true? My point is that calling something "history" doesn't make it so, and that it is all too common in WCK to call legends, stories, myths, etc. "history". The Ng Miu-Yim Wing Chun legend, for example, isn't history although it is often labelled as such. (Though as allegory it is useful IMO).

As I said, it takes education, critical thinking skills, etc. to discern what is historically true (factual). Before we call something history we should have compelling factual, independently verified, evidence that it is true. Lacking that, how can we say something is true?



You're mixing several seperate things together and treating them as one. History is just that - history. Then you talk about validating theories. But then finish talking about fighting or training methods and results. Are you trying to say that the only way to validate history is through physical results? Historical topics (fact or otherwise) don't really have anything to do with results from training. Kinda sill if you ask me.

You're missing my point: that history should be put in its proper place. Very often people in WCK try to use "history" (whether true or not) as a way to validate the effectiveness of their theories/teachings (especially for marketing purposes). And, I'm saying history can't do that; only results can validate the usefulness of training/fighting methods. For example, if someone says a certain practice/theory/etc. is good because it comes from Shaolin -- they are attempting to use "history" to validate some practice. My point is that whether true or not (whether it really comes from Shaolin or is just a story or legend), only results will validate the effectiveness of the practice.

You are quite right that results don't validate the history (whether it really came from Shaolin or not), and I never suggested so. To show the history of some particular practice/theory goes back to needing compelling factual, independently verified, evidence of what really occurred.

[Ultimatewingchun]

When I say 1% of the time I’m talking about the total picture, ie.- when I try to calculate how much time I’ve spent at William Cheung’s seminars, lessons, etc…yeah, it couldn’t possibly be more than maybe 1 or 2% of the time that I’ve actually heard him talking “history” – and oftentimes it was in response to someone’s questions to him about history, and not because he brought the subject up.

So you can't judge the 1-2% by one eight minute clip. And furthermore, sometimes his seminars would extend over a two day period (or perhaps even a week).

And like Joy, I also find myself in basic agreement with Terence’s post as it was stated. So let’s take a look at that:

“In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as ‘history’ -- legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. -- is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to ‘forget WCK history’, but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. 'History’ -- whether genuine or not -- does not provide validation for one's theories (which is for the most part how WCK ‘history’ is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results.” (T)


***FIRST of all, the problem is that we don’t know what’s genuine and what’s not, because there are so many conflicting stories and accounts – so I can’t fault Terence for starting out by saying that the legends and stories are not genuine. Maybe they are, and maybe they’re not.

And when he goes on to say that critical thinking skills are required – I would argue that the best way to use that critical thinking is to gauge any validity (historical or otherwise) by seeing WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.

Now you might say that this is not actually a study of “history” per se – but rather a different issue, ie.- a study of wing chun fight efficiency…

BUT HERE’S THE PROBLEM: VARIOUS WING CHUN CLANS TRY TO CLAIM SOME SORT OF SUPERIORITY EITHER AS A FIGHTING METHOD AND/OR SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY RESULTING IN SUPERIORITY (and hence the politics)....

AND NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING (concerning history).

So why continue with all the politics and history lessons? Where is all of this getting the wing chun world? Nowhere.

Let me put it another way: in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make exactly where and when various wing chun came from? Supposing it turns out the "oldest" and "most direct" and "most historically legitimate" line of wing chun is inferior to some other version of wing chun that's more modern?

So what difference would it make to constantly examine the "historical" roots of said alleged "more legitimate and authentic" wing chun system???

So again, returning to the theme of the thread: It's not about the roots - it's about the efficiency of the system(s)...and this can only be determined by constant pressure testing against (and in comparison to) the other top martial arts of the day.

Otherwise, wing chun will indeed become an "HISTORICAL" footnote.

[JPinAZ]

Vic, the 1% thing was more of a joke. You brought it up, but the clip showed otherwise, no big deal..



BUT HERE’S THE PROBLEM: VARIOUS WING CHUN CLANS TRY TO CLAIM SOME SORT OF SUPERIORITY EITHER AS A FIGHTING METHOD AND/OR SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY RESULTING IN SUPERIORITY (and hence the politics)....

AND NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING (concerning history).

So, this thread is about politics..


So why continue with all the politics and history lessons? Where is all of this getting the wing chun world? Nowhere.

Exactly, yet here we are on yet another thread talking politics...


Let me put it another way: in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make exactly where and when various wing chun came from? Supposing it turns out the "oldest" and "most direct" and "most historically legitimate" line of wing chun is inferior to some other version of wing chun that's more modern?

So what difference would it make to constantly examine the "historical" roots of said alleged "more legitimate and authentic" wing chun system???

So again, returning to the theme of the thread: It's not about the roots - it's about the efficiency of the system(s)...and this can only be determined by constant pressure testing against (and in comparison to) the other top martial arts of the day.

Otherwise, wing chun will indeed become an "HISTORICAL" footnote.

I thought the original purpose of the thread was to say forget the history/politics and just train? I still say history and politics aren't the same thing (but one can decide to mix them together if they take the history personally, guess that's on them). Training methods and results are yet another subject unrelated to the first 2.
I still don't see any problem with digging into history and sharing findings, regardless who does it.. Just like I don't see any problem with not wanting too.

Now I agree with you - what difference does it make? none. History is just that - history. Results of what's most or more effective/efficient as a training method is something else. No argument there. It seems thought that the 2 seperate things are being mixed here. And I still say, if someone wants to study, research, talk, share what they find regarding history, and even come up to thier own conclusions - who cares? Obviously you do.
The world is not going to end, and WC isn't going to disappear into thin air because some people chose to do more than just train. I think you're taking this too seriously (and personally for that matter).

[bennyvt]

i think the only time history is good is when we can learn from it. Like, in the early days vt kept there hands lower due to kicks, wsl got smacked in the nuts in a fight went to yip man and yip said you should have done garn sao, wsl said you didnt show me that so he replied he learnt it off chan wah shun but leung bik thought the jum sao better as you could attack easier. So wsl and everyone the learnt after him learnt both. This teaches us stuff. History is not, there are two people made themself grand master then would not back it up. Thats just idiots looking like idiots.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Those that do not learn from History are bound to repeat it.

[TenTigers]

when were these "histories" actually created?
When did they start calling it Wing Chun, Hung-Ga, Choy Li Fut?
Certainly not when they were rebelling against the Ching.
During those times, nobody bothered to give their system a name. Many were simply called Siu-Lum, Fut-Ga, Lo Hon Kuen, etc or combinations of the same.
When is there a need to give something a name?
When you are marketing your product. It separates you from the other guys.
When is it neccesary to have a wonderful story?
When you are marketing your product. It lends credibility.
Westerners say, "New and Improved!"
Chinese say"From an ancient traditional formula"
Who would study from a guy who says,"I'm a nobody and just made this up!"
Rather than,"I am somebody because I come from a long line of MASTERS"

Sure, we can follow our lineages back a few generations. Wong Wah Bo, Luk Ah-Choy, Chan Heung, Wong Yun-Lum, etc. But after that,there are no records, and then of course, all the wondrous stories begin.
A Siu-Lum Nun witnessed a fight between a snake and a crane.
A Tibetan Monk witnessed a fight between a White Crane and a White Ape
A Taoist Priest witnessed a fight between a Snake and a Sparrowhawk
A Jewsih Rabbi witnessed an argument between a yenta and a kosher butcher...

when are people going to simply agree that most, if not all the stories are dubious, all the systems are good, they all work, and they all pretty much share common origins. Different styles were created by different fighters' personal preferences, based on their successes, or body type, or coordination, speed, or whatever.

My guess? Probably never. As long as we have schools, teach to the public, do demonstrations,promote our styles, there will be marketing.
The only ones that do not do this are whenthere is a small group of Martial Artists, sharing and training together on their own, with no agenda other than training and mutual improvement.
These guys have already reached these conclusions, and don't really care.

That being said, I have to work on my new brochure....
Kosher Kung-Fu!
Founded in the Shalom Temple Beth-Isreal

[sanjuro_ronin]

History is like my Johnson, it gets more impressive and important with age.
:D

[bennyvt]

i thought you meant that the stories are exaggerated and over hyped. :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

i thought you meant that the stories are exaggerated and over hyped. :p

Someone has mastered the ancient art of "reading between the lines".

[AdrianUK]

UltimateWingChun

Excellent thread, if there was a club with your attitude near me I would still be in Wing Chun, all the clubs near me are the same, forms, no real sparring, delusional about there ability. I left the WT club I was with because

No sparring
No cardio
Forms over and over again
unrealistic drills

Wing Chun does need to step up to survive, if it can, it will be a shame if it fails

Final note
Bullshido

If you have gone there and got a rough ride for being Wing Chun, its easy to reverse that

post good sparring clips
hang in the CMA forums NOT YMAS !!
talk sense, if you admit you do Wing Chun because you like it and admit it has no ground game etc you will get treated like anyone else
READ THE STICKIES ! ignore them at your peril

Best regards to those able to train with quality

[Vajramusti]

Wing Chun does need to step up to survive, if it can, it will be a shame if it fails
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wing chun wasa relatively small but effective style- 50 years ago. People saw just enough about it's effectiveness to dabble in it and create wing chun chain stores and clubs.

Good wing chun will always be there if good teachers and good students remain without worrying about the net and utube..

IMO- not someone else's- most self described wing chunners that I see are not doing good wing chun....neither fish nor fowl. Many folks should be doing something else and many are-... no problem as I see it.

joy chaudhuri

[AdrianUK]

Wing chun wasa relatively small but effective style- 50 years ago. People saw just enough about it's effectiveness to dabble in it and create wing chun chain stores and clubs.

Good wing chun will always be there if good teachers and good students remain without worrying about the net and utube..

IMO- not someone else's- most self described wing chunners that I see are not doing good wing chun....neither fish nor fowl. Many folks should be doing something else and many are-... no problem as I see it.

joy chaudhuri

Problem I see with this is the measure is out there in public now in the form of limited rules competitions, not the "it was effective 50 years ago because I was told it was". The sad lack of visible, identifiable wing chun working in the modern environment is damaging its reputation and I think that needs to be addressed before it gets sold as martial art when theres no proven fighting ability there

[sanjuro_ronin]

Problem I see with this is the measure is out there in public now in the form of limited rules competitions, not the "it was effective 50 years ago because I was told it was". The sad lack of visible, identifiable wing chun working in the modern environment is damaging its reputation and I think that needs to be addressed before it gets sold as martial art when theres no proven fighting ability there

For some people, the effectiveness of WC in modern sport fighting is irrelevant.
For some people, if its good enough for them in their limited scope of application, that is good enough.
To some people, no rules competition is not the yardstick to which MA are to be judged.
Though to be honest, none of these people have made it clear what is a good judge of WC's effectiveness.

[Vajramusti]

Frankly, I do not understand. There are enough people who learn and use one self defense system or the other who find what they do to be very effective for their self defense and dealing with dangerous situations- aside from considerations of health, knowledge and self devlopment.. Why do they need to use current media outlets for a viewing audience?

Does a top notch sniper test his skills with a general viewing audience.?
Did the original thuggees need to do their strangling for spectators?


For folks needing a win loss record or badges or awards or recognition- media events are understandable. Others do what they gotta do.If they are honest they will honeand adjust their training to keep it useful.

A good segment of spectators in televised boxing and other activities are just that- spectators
with limited knowledge of the details of the skills involved.

joy chaudhuri

PS I feel sorry for the turkeys today- lots of sacrifice of mass produced tasteless meat.

[t_niehoff]

How do we measure performance except through actual performance?

WCK is a fighting method. Your performance with a fighting method can only be determined from fighting (and not from nonfighting).

What determines your level of performance is the quality of opponent (how good of fighter they are) you can deal with.

Fighting in the street is performance. But what is the quality of opponent? Fighting in a ring or gym we can have a good idea of the quality of opponent, and so our performance level. Same with boxing. I may out-box some guy in the street but what does that say about my boxing skill? Just that I was better than him. But if I can consistently hold my own against Golden Glove boxers, that tells me something about my level of performance, abouthow good my boxing is.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How do we measure performance except through actual performance?

WCK is a fighting method. Your performance with a fighting method can only be determined from fighting (and not from nonfighting).

What determines your level of performance is the quality of opponent (how good of fighter they are) you can deal with.

Fighting in the street is performance. But what is the quality of opponent? Fighting in a ring or gym we can have a good idea of the quality of opponent, and so our performance level. Same with boxing. I may out-box some guy in the street but what does that say about my boxing skill? Just that I was better than him. But if I can consistently hold my own against Golden Glove boxers, that tells me something about my level of performance, abouthow good my boxing is.

This is the very outlook that drove so many old time MA to test their skills and develop new systems, so one must ask, " when did this become a "bad" thing" ??

[AdrianUK]

Frankly, I do not understand. There are enough people who learn and use one self defense system or the other who find what they do to be very effective for their self defense and dealing with dangerous situations- aside from considerations of health, knowledge and self devlopment.. Why do they need to use current media outlets for a viewing audience?

Does a top notch sniper test his skills with a general viewing audience.?
Did the original thuggees need to do their strangling for spectators?


For folks needing a win loss record or badges or awards or recognition- media events are understandable. Others do what they gotta do.If they are honest they will honeand adjust their training to keep it useful.

A good segment of spectators in televised boxing and other activities are just that- spectators
with limited knowledge of the details of the skills involved.

joy chaudhuri

PS I feel sorry for the turkeys today- lots of sacrifice of mass produced tasteless meat.

Ok what I mean is, and has been said on here, Wing chun is a fighting art that fails to fight in most cases. What is going to happen to an art that attracts and relies on to propagate practioners that can't and or don't fight with it ? Defending in a SD situation is one thing but its a very limited situation for testing against. Sport fighting gives the opportunity to apply against skill and that is the only way I can see to improve or even maintain a fighting quality to the art.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun is a close quarter striking system, and I think wing chun can (and has been) street effective due to the close quarter standup nature of how most fights begin: your opponent is right in your face and talking 5hit. :rolleyes:

So it shouldn't be surprising that many people have testified to it's usefulness and street-effectiveness when trained realistically, ie.- frequent sparring.

But Terence puts his finger on a good point: just how skilled is that guy in the street you may have fought?

Wing Chun needs to be pressure tested consistently against people who have been trained well in other arts - and there is precious little of this kind of thing going on, it seems to me.

And then when you throw in all the wing chun "politics" and the wing chun "history" that is always connected seemingly by definition to the politics....

you have a system that now exists on the fringe of the martial arts world, imo. And this is a shame, because the art has a lot to offer.

[Vajramusti]

"Wing Chun needs to be pressure tested consistently against peole who have been trained well in other arts - and there is precious little of this kind of thing going on, it seems to me."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed that one needs to test what they have against competent people and not just from the same style.How do you know that this doesnt happen for some serious people? The vista that one views is not necessarily the universe is it? I dont presume to know what is happening
in every kwoon, street corner or alley. And does one need to know from the approval of net list readers what works and what doesn't?

joy chaudhuri

PS_Wing chun is not justa close quarters system. It helps the user to defend himself/herself...
period.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"PS_Wing chun is not just a close quarters system." (Joy)

***I really have to smile every time I read or hear this. The following is how this very website FORUMS define it:

WING CHUN
The world's most popular form of Southern Kung Fu, Wing Chun is characterized by short range power, center-line strategy and sticking and deflecting techniques.


***Huum...short range power?! So one is not at short range when applying short range power? Not at short range when sticking or deflecting? :cool:

[golgo]

"PS_Wing chun is not just a close quarters system." (Joy)

***I really have to smile every time I read or hear this. The following is how this very website FORUMS define it:

WING CHUN
The world's most popular form of Southern Kung Fu, Wing Chun is characterized by short range power, center-line strategy and sticking and deflecting techniques.


***Huum...short range power?! So one is not at short range when applying short range power? Not at short range when sticking or deflecting? :cool:

I would think the dragon pole would be more long range, right? I've never even held one, so I wouldn't really know its applications though.

[TenTigers]

What is going to happen to an art that attracts and relies on to propagate practioners that can't and or don't fight with it ? .

the reality is (and I am not saying this is good or bad, it just is) that many teachers are only looking to pass on their art to a small number of people. If they teach a hundred and only a few get it, they are satisfied.
The problem is, there are many teachers who for reasons unknown, do not pass on their hand. If each family of Wing Chun, or for that matter, each family of each style of TCMA, produced one Alan Orr, it would be good numbers.


So, history and politics aside, why do you think so many teachers do not pass on their hand at all?
-besides the ones who don't have it to begin with? So let's dispense with that, and also dispense with the coaches versus fighters argument-it's been covered.

[SAAMAG]

"PS_Wing chun is not just a close quarters system." (Joy)

***I really have to smile every time I read or hear this. The following is how this very website FORUMS define it:

WING CHUN
The world's most popular form of Southern Kung Fu, Wing Chun is characterized by short range power, center-line strategy and sticking and deflecting techniques.


***Huum...short range power?! So one is not at short range when applying short range power? Not at short range when sticking or deflecting? :cool:

Then again, some people's boxing is pretty much short range as well. Some people like long slapping jabs, and long hooks, and long, overreaching straights. Some people prefer close-in "dirty boxing" or peekaboo styles. Couldn't some people's wing chun also be more extended than others?

At the same time though....I'd agree fully that wing chun as I know it is moreso a close combat system, and one that best used at it's most effective range. Classifying wing chun as a "long range" art is (no pun intended) reaching a bit.

[SAAMAG]

I would think the dragon pole would be more long range, right? I've never even held one, so I wouldn't really know its applications though.

In a weapons context, yes the pole has a longer physical range. The movements to achieve that power however are short. You won't see wing chun guys flinging the pole all over their bodies in elongated movements like you would in wushu.

But I think what the subject is about here is moreso hand-to-hand.

[AdrianUK]

the reality is (and I am not saying this is good or bad, it just is) that many teachers are only looking to pass on their art to a small number of people. If they teach a hundred and only a few get it, they are satisfied.
The problem is, there are many teachers who for reasons unknown, do not pass on their hand. If each family of Wing Chun, or for that matter, each family of each style of TCMA, produced one Alan Orr, it would be good numbers.


So, history and politics aside, why do you think so many teachers do not pass on their hand at all?
-besides the ones who don't have it to begin with? So let's dispense with that, and also dispense with the coaches versus fighters argument-it's been covered.

Before you hold Alan Orr up as an example I would take a good look at his fight footage and see how much recognisable wing chun is in there. And don't start saying its all in the principles, to claim wing chun use it has to have recognisable moves from wing chun

[TenTigers]

alright. I was simply pulling a name out that people would recognize. I don't want to get sidetracked into a debate on whether or not Alan is fighting with WC concepts or whatever.
I could've said Wong Shun Leung, as that was the first name that came to mind. The problem is, I really don't know all the men who fought and represented WC back then. If I say one, then someone from another lineage says,"What about so and so?" and then we get right back into the politics.
So, for the sake of discussion, I chose one name. One person from OUR generation, that is out there fighting and trying to achieve this.

[hunt1]

IMO only those that don't understand Wing Chun try to limit it in some way to short range what ever that is. In simple terms you are either in contact range ie. you can strike me I can strike you or you are not.

Humans are uncomfortable when close to another. When someone gets to close we try to move away to maintain our space. WC tends to start it's training at this range because it is the least comfortable place and thus a human needs to spend more time here to get comfortable with it.

In general WC starts close and moves out to non contact range. Boxing tends to start on the outside and move in. As was pointed out many boxers get just as close as any wing chun person . Wing chun has at least as many methods for working on the outside as working on the inside. It is unfortunate that most don't get to this point or have teachers that never really learned or understood the outside.

My knife form contains 12 sections each having a forward moving and backward moving component each are to be learned as both moving fore and aft providing 24 different concepts for closing from non contact to contact or for moving from close contact to distance.

The pole form provides six ways to use the jab to close or to create distance. It teaches changing angle while at long contact distance. Height changing low to high to mid etc and short shuffle step footwork for and aft and side to side are also part of the form. I do not know what others forms contain so only refer to forms I have been taught.

All forms can be weapon forms and all forms can be empty hand forms.

[Iron-Man]

WC is short-Medium range due to the limitations of body rotation and degree of leaning before WC principles are violated. Hence the categorisation is based on reach rather than the different standing distances from our opponents. We can still hit the other guy with short range tools even if we are further away if we are quick enough on our feet !

We can add the Southern Long Fist but then we would need to rotate the body 90degrees to achieve this or we could add the side and roundhouse kicks to increase reach but same again we would require shifting our centre line focus momentarily off our opponent.

We could also lean over to increase our striking reach but this again would violate WC body structures.

An example of this short range configuration is seen in WC chain punching which is best done when both elbows are tucked in and facing down with both shoulders facing centre, any attempt to alter this configuration to try to increase individual arm reach would alter the efficient mechanics.

For these reasons I see no problem in referring to WC as Short-Medium range fighting system.

[Vajramusti]

WC is short-Medium range due to the limitations of body rotation and degree of leaning before WC principles are violated.

For these reasons I see no problem in referring to WC as Short-Medium range fighting system.
(Iron Man)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commentators withe the exception of Victor are not sufficiently wing chun folks.
!. Wing chun is not robotic. Wing chun has a program for development. When you have the proper structure you can adapt to situations, including abstracted "theoretical"" ranges".
Good wing chun practice delights in contact- even the second form is labelled as searching for the bridge.

2.Some including Victor are incorporating elements of boxing and wrestling. I respect their views
for their own development.But their comments dont cover all forms of wing chun. I dont do TWC, nor WT- just a good version of WC/VT and have not
felt the need for jabbing (yhough I have adecnt jab)

or catch wrestling. Some do JJ-I respect their choice, but by choice I havent gone that way.

3. Hunt 1-Hunter's post was spot on.

4. Some folks establish their expectations through their own inductions from U Tube and
TV and cage productions.
There are pictures here and there of effective wc uses against other styles. One of Ho Kam Ming's Macao students hada web page which had pics from his fight against a Muay Thai guy. There are people who have used wing chun effectively against non wc folks but dont feela need to be on utube etc.

5 Your own experience is a key. If you dont have confidence in what you do-it wont work.
But it is short sighted to assume that there arent wing chun folks who for their own development have not used their skills aginst actual "resisting opponents".

6 I am not debating- lots of forum folks have already made commitments to mixing different arts.
I have no problem with that and pointless to argue. I enjoy finding out about other arts but I work on both stability and mobility.

7. In a real situations a wing chun person should adjust to whatever is there. Wing chun is a very good art but it doesn't do your fighting for you. You have to take care of yourself and do what you gotta do..

8. One should move from range to range fluidly.

Off the soap box.Excuse primitive keyboarding.

joy chaudhuri

[Liddel]

I whole heartedly agree Joy and i liked Hunt1's post to.

There many examples one could address...

VT kicks can be used at several different ranges and if you think about the contact points being the base of the foot, they are actually longer than my Kickboxing buddies kicks...why ?

Because we use the base of the foot and not the shin. so when kicking (for opponents of similar proportions) VT kicks can be utilised at longer distances. Some kicks obviously not but you get the drift.

In the scheme of things this is irrelevant becuse its up to the individuals ability to work to and at the right range, but is a good discussion point for those that pigeon hole thier VT into one range of effectivness.

I think body movement is another, people often dont bend much or rotate at the waist nor do they have much movement with the shoulders with chain punching.

I see this as concentrating on the forms rather than actual application....

You dont want to ramain at longer ranges but VT certainly has the tools to survive there long enough for the opportunity to arise (or be created) to bridge to the most effective range and out again if need be.

Glad im not alone in this view, that would be a little concerning :p

DREW

[m1k3]

Before you hold Alan Orr up as an example I would take a good look at his fight footage and see how much recognisable wing chun is in there. And don't start saying its all in the principles, to claim wing chun use it has to have recognisable moves from wing chun

According to whom? Is there some grand council that is the final arbitrator of what is or isn't wing chun? I have seen his clips and his people fight close in and hit their opponents. Looks like good Wing chun to me.

As for my take on the people competing/using their art. Some schools, somewhere may be testing there art, and some schools are doing it publicly. That's cool but how good is the average user at the average school at using his skills under pressure. To me that is the real test of the relevance of your training.

I still train some Wing Chun on my own as my striking art and do the 1st 3rd of SLT as a relaxation and breathing exercise but I am primarily training BJJ/Submission Grappling. That is more a personal preference as I enjoy grappling more than striking.

But at my BJJ school we have people who compete in BJJ and submission grappling tournaments on a regular basis. So even though I don't compete, at least not yet, I get the benefit of their experiences and train as if I could compete if I wanted to.
Oh yeah, you train this way from the beginning, its not something you have to work up to. If you gas out or feel your pushing too hard its ok to take a break but the goal is to work your level up to the rest of the class.

This type of training brings a certain mental toughness that I didn't see in my wing chun schools.

Just my 2 cents.

[AdrianUK]

According to whom? Is there some grand council that is the final arbitrator of what is or isn't wing chun? I have seen his clips and his people fight close in and hit their opponents. Looks like good Wing chun to me.


Good point, was does constitute Wing Chun, if you can't recognise the fighting from the forms how do you define it as wing chun ? I guess I was doing a bad style of wing chun because I certainly never learned to fight with anything that looked remotely like the forms or footwork and that was a big part of me giving up on wing chun.

So is there an agreed definition of wing chun including moves or is it all concepts ?

[hunt1]

Iron man I think I understand your points however I must disagree.

As for body rotation Bil Jee has both 180 degree and 90 degree body rotation sections. The degree of body rotation used in a fight depends upon what is needed be it none 1 degree or 180 etc. The pole punches also are done with 180 degree rotation. As for the jab lean, moving weight to the front foot is done in both the pole and knives of some wing chun families including some Yip Man students. Again the action is taught with weight moving to the front leg and the front knee sinking the front knee doesn't go past the toes. these elements together provide the lean I think you are talking about.

Wing Chun forms teach concepts it is up to the individual to put the concepts together. Hopefully a teacher is there to guide and provide idea's but in the end it is the individuals task to put things together and seek out answers if the ones his teacher provides are not sufficient

[hunt1]

Joy and Liddel, thanks. It appears I can make a good post if I limit myself to no more than 1 post a month after that I believe anything I say is suspect.

Joy sometime this coming year I am going to take a ride with Phil to visit your way hope i get a chance to meet you.

[Vajramusti]

Joy sometime this coming year I am going to take a ride with Phil to visit your way hope i get a chance to meet you.[/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That will be great!!
Joy
Chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

IMO only those that don't understand Wing Chun try to limit it in some way to short range what ever that is. In simple terms you are either in contact range ie. you can strike me I can strike you or you are not.


What does it mean to "understand wing chun"? To me, this sort of phrase is meaningless (and presumptuous). You can either successfully use your WCK (movement) in fighting or you can't. "Understanding" is an intellectual process; performance isn't based on "understanding" (as in "I understand basketball").

WCK movement, the movement in the forms, the drills, and the dummy, "works" in contact, when attached to an opponent. It doesn't "work" -- at least not reliably and consistently -- when not in attached fighting. This is easy enough to see if you watch WCK practioners spar: when they are not attached, they can use little of WCK movement (typically just throw punches and an occassional pak sao or shift to kickboxing). The WCK drills are attached drills. The dummy (the WCK "heavy bag") is practicing attached movement.

How a person moves effectively (uses his body effectively, the mechanics, etc.) when attached to an opponent is very different than how a person moves effectively when not in contact (in free movement, on the outside).



Humans are uncomfortable when close to another. When someone gets to close we try to move away to maintain our space. WC tends to start it's training at this range because it is the least comfortable place and thus a human needs to spend more time here to get comfortable with it.


Not everyone is uncomfortable with being close.

To be attached to an opponent requires closeness. If you are smaller, weaker (remember the Ng Mui-Yim WingChun allegory?), you are at a significant disadvantage on the outside (where your opponent will have a reach and power advantage); we want to take away their advantages. That is done by getting inside their reach and power, by closing them down, by breaking their structure. etc. That's the WCK faat (dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi).



In general WC starts close and moves out to non contact range. Boxing tends to start on the outside and move in. As was pointed out many boxers get just as close as any wing chun person . Wing chun has at least as many methods for working on the outside as working on the inside. It is unfortunate that most don't get to this point or have teachers that never really learned or understood the outside.


WCK doesn't "start close and move out" -- WCK doesn't "do" anything.

Again it's not a matter of "understanding" (the outside): it's a matter of being able to use your WCK movement. The sort of movement that works well on the outside is boxing/kickboxing movement (just look at the evidence). Just like the sort of movement that works well on the ground is BJJ/wrestling movement (and not WCK movement). What sort of movement works well when attached and striking is WCK movement. And that explains why the WCK drills are attached and striking drills -- you are practicing the movement you will use, in the context (being attached) you will use it.



My knife form contains 12 sections each having a forward moving and backward moving component each are to be learned as both moving fore and aft providing 24 different concepts for closing from non contact to contact or for moving from close contact to distance.

The pole form provides six ways to use the jab to close or to create distance. It teaches changing angle while at long contact distance. Height changing low to high to mid etc and short shuffle step footwork for and aft and side to side are also part of the form. I do not know what others forms contain so only refer to forms I have been taught.

All forms can be weapon forms and all forms can be empty hand forms.


One problem (of many) with "concepts" is that people can dream up all kinds of "ideas" (what a concept is). And the forms are like inkblots, where people see their preconceptions (what concepts essentially are). What you don't see are people consistently and reliably using the movement/mechanics of WCK on the outside, in free movement, when sparring/fighting with decently skilled fighters. What you see when WCK people fight on the outside is all their WCK movement (except for a few things) go out the window.

[t_niehoff]

Wing Chun forms teach concepts it is up to the individual to put the concepts together.


Concepts are ideas, mental representations of reality. In my view, the WCK forms don't teach us "concepts" -- they teach us the movement/mechanics of WCK's approach to fighting.

Create your own basketball forms or boxing forms. What are you putting in those forms but the movements, the techniques, the mechanics of those activities? We don't learn physical activities from concepts, we learn physical activities by doing them (movement).



Hopefully a teacher is there to guide and provide idea's but in the end it is the individuals task to put things together and seek out answers if the ones his teacher provides are not sufficient

Good instructors don't "provide ideas" but teach fundamental skills. Who would go to a golf pro or tennis pro for "ideas"?

[Ultimatewingchun]

precisely because the punching/striking structure requires one's centerline to basically face the opponent's center-of-mass DIRECTLY...

so the shoulder torque is minimal as compared to say a boxer's lead, cross, hook, uppercut, etc....

since wing chun prefers to have both arms in play at all times for both offense and defense, ie.- simultaneous (or near simultaneous) blocking and striking, parrying, deflecting, and of course to stick to the opponent so as to apply constant pressure in order to take his space away.

THIS IS ALL DONE SHORT RANGE....

with chi sao as the main drill at the closest of striking ranges, kiu sao and other drills at a longer extension, and some non contact starting point drills and applications come into play as well, ie.- several footwork patterns, possibly the TWC entry technique, etc.

All of which can work fine at a range wherein within one short half step or so you can now strike, stick, knee, elbow, sweep, possibly standing armlock, etc...

and of course, at slightly longer ranges wing chun makes use of some low to mid level kicking...

but outside of these ranges, and when up against a skilled fighter with longer arms, indeed there can be trouble getting to range and/or in dealing with arching (ie.- round, hooking) strikes and kicks....

and trouble at the other end of the spectrum with the striker who suddenly becomes a grappler and seeks to grab your arms, body, leg, etc. for a tie-up to lock, or a take down/throw or a leg shoot.

No need to constantly debate these things...

actually working against people skilled in other arts will take the wing chun world a lot further than the debates...

which requires less attention being paid to the politics and history of wing chun and more time spent in engaging a worthy opponent or training partner.

Now as regards Alan Orr as an example of the bigger issue of what is and what is not wing chun....remember, wing chun is primarily about HITTING THE GUY....and not about how often you do lop, or pak, or bong, or tan, etc....

as long as he's getting hit a lot more than you are. :cool:

[Vajramusti]

The posts repeat their oft repeated POVs. Thanks.
See no point in so called debating-no judges here
just a chit chat list.

joy chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

wing chun is primarily about HITTING THE GUY....and not about how often you do lop, or pak, or bong, or tan, etc....

as long as he's getting hit a lot more than you are. :cool:

I disagree. In fact, I think the focus on purely striking takes you away from WCK (and moves you toward boxing).

WCK's approach is to control the opponent while hitting him. The bong, tan, lop, etc. are all means or paths to control, not to just hitting (which is why what we do is different in kind from boxing - where physically controlling an opponent is not a part of their method). The control aspect is the very essence of WCK. Without that control if you get close to an opponent (on the inside), he'll quickly move to control you (if he's any good). The way to preempt (jeet) this is by controlling him first. By controlling him, he then needs to deal with two things, trying to break free of your control and dealing with your strikes (at the same time). Also, the strking sets up the controlling and the controlling sets up the striking.

If you just want to be able to hit effectively on the inside without controlling an opponent, you don't need WCK -- you just need boxing.

[t_niehoff]

The posts repeat their oft repeated POVs. Thanks.
See no point in so called debating-no judges here
just a chit chat list.

joy chaudhuri

These forums are not for debate but discussion.

I find it ironic that people like you -- who haven't changed (grown) their POV in decades but still post -- comment on others who "repeat their oft repeated POVs". A great example of the pot calling the kettle 'black'.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I disagree. In fact, I think the focus on purely striking takes you away from WCK (and moves you toward boxing)...

WCK's approach is to control the opponent while hitting him..."


***IT SHOULD be evident from my last post that hitting him (without getting hit back) at such short range requires that you do control him.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And Joy,

Perhaps I find it necessary to repeat myself because no matter how many times the logic of the position is presented, some people never seem to get it. (Perhaps because they don't want to?)

[Wayfaring]

History is interesting to me because of interesting stories of humans and their worlds and accomplishments. However, I carry a low threshold of expectation for what history can accomplish beyond that. The philosopher Hegel stated this as "The only thing you can learn from history is that people learn nothing from history".

I think one of the compelling things I see is that it's not necessarily WCK that is becoming obsolete, it is training methods. The rise of popularity of MMA is causing a lot of smaller shows to crop up. These shows are a way a martial artist test themself and make a small paycheck that improves with success. The effect of these shows on a training team is that it time boxes someone's preparation of technique and fitness. They have a set date to be prepared. People with those types of immediate goals tend to raise up the levels of effectiveness and fitness of others who train with them. That urgency and improvement is compelling to people wanting to train. I guess what you measure and test improves more effectively than what you don't.

I don't know if I agree that it is history and politics that is the limiting factor here. MMA teams have plenty of their own drama and politics, and they like to tell stories too.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I think one of the compelling things I see is that it's not necessarily WCK that is becoming obsolete, it is training methods." (Wayfaring)


***I AGREE, but I would add that the whole "politics" of wing chun (which almost always includes a link to somebody's "version" of history)...the politics of it all contributes greatly to the lack of proper training methods.

And the point made about mma guys constantly setting goals to reach - goals connected to competitive events - is a good one.

I used to try and make the case around here for wing chun sparring tournments precisely because preparation for such events would raise the game of the participants - but people always found reasons why this wouldn't work.

Now what do I mean about how politics often subverts training methods? People often maintain power, authority, status, and in some cases, a healthy rice bowl ($) by taking the easy route regarding how to keep school enrollment constant and growing:

don't run a tough curriculm, ie.- consistent strengthening, flexibility, cardio, hard contact sparring - and risk getting exposed as possibly being someone who never did enough of that himself. But without the tough curriculum, and without some consistent testing of what wing chun works and what doesn't - wing chun risks becoming an anecdote in the martial art history books of the future, as I've been saying.

Some sort of organized and ongoing sparring competition events (and not chi sao events - which is another example of the easy way out, imo) would do a great service for the preservation of the art into the future; but a preservation that is based upon wing chun fight efficiency, and not simply some blind attachment to preserving the past intact.

In this manner, as time goes on, forms might continue to evolve, wooden dummy moves might evolve, body structure and footwork might evolve, kicking technique might evolve, and yes, perhaps even chi moves moves and strategies might evolve and change as well - but most importantly - the ART AS A WHOLE will evolve based upon just how effective it is given the conditions of today:

- how well does it handle the boxer type with skills...
- how well against the streetfighter type with dirty boxing skills...
- how well against grapplers who constantlly go for the takedown...
- how well against submission guys if it does go to the ground...
- how well against kickboxers, Thai boxers, kyokushin karate fighters,etc...

It's the politics of wing chun that invariably gets in the way of finding these things out with consistency - notwithstanding the fact that there are those schools and individuals who already do these things, and props to them...

but this seems to be a very small percentage of the wing chun world.

[Knifefighter]

Some sort of organized and ongoing sparring competition events (and not chi sao events - which is another example of the easy way out, imo) would do a great service for the preservation of the art into the future; but a preservation that is based upon wing chun fight efficiency, and not simply some blind attachment to preserving the past intact.

There is already a venue for this... it is called MMA.

[Wayfaring]

I used to try and make the case around here for wing chun sparring tournments precisely because preparation for such events would raise the game of the participants - but people always found reasons why this wouldn't work.

Logistics are tough with that - some of the larger martial arts gatherings can support that. The main argument against that is basically there are already venues for that in MMA and more general gatherings not focused on wing chun only. There are also other gatherings that support informal open mat time. But people do tend to only mix with their own little crowd.

It's better to get out and put gloves on and box with boxers, pads on and spar with MT guys, roll with submission grapplers, etc. That keeps egos in check. People learn to be really polite and not so opinionated. And develop better skills.



Now what do I mean about how politics often subverts training methods? People often maintain power, authority, status, and in some cases, a healthy rice bowl ($) by taking the easy route regarding how to keep school enrollment constant and growing:

don't run a tough curriculm, ie.- consistent strengthening, flexibility, cardio, hard contact sparring - and risk getting exposed as possibly being someone who never did enough of that himself. But without the tough curriculum, and without some consistent testing of what wing chun works and what doesn't - wing chun risks becoming an anecdote in the martial art history books of the future, as I've been saying.

I see your point here. That's really becoming true for all TMA's from anything I can notice. So the rice bowl protection is not going to work out well in the long run. There are TONS of average MMA schools opening up, BJJ schools, Muy Thai schools. Not so much for TMA schools, and its harder for existing ones to stay in business. They are all competing for the same market share. WWE fans and boxing fans are becoming more and more willing to shell out $15 to see a local small show card as entertainment (well the current economy is another story).
They all want to talk about the UFC, and local amateur and pro fighters. Inevitably the "how does my training compare?" comes up. The answer is either you have people at your school in local shows so you know, or you have to speculate some kind of answer.

The whole self defense angle also in our society is also a little less compelling - when you have teenage gang members with handguns on one side, and really terrible criminal legal consequences for fighting on the other side. The only way you can really safely get in a fight nowadays is in a small show, as crazy as that sounds.



Some sort of organized and ongoing sparring competition events (and not chi sao events - which is another example of the easy way out, imo) would do a great service for the preservation of the art into the future; but a preservation that is based upon wing chun fight efficiency, and not simply some blind attachment to preserving the past intact.

In this manner, as time goes on, forms might continue to evolve, wooden dummy moves might evolve, body structure and footwork might evolve, kicking technique might evolve, and yes, perhaps even chi moves moves and strategies might evolve and change as well - but most importantly - the ART AS A WHOLE will evolve based upon just how effective it is given the conditions of today:

- how well does it handle the boxer type with skills...
- how well against the streetfighter type with dirty boxing skills...
- how well against grapplers who constantlly go for the takedown...
- how well against submission guys if it does go to the ground...
- how well against kickboxers, Thai boxers, kyokushin karate fighters,etc...

It's the politics of wing chun that invariably gets in the way of finding these things out with consistency - notwithstanding the fact that there are those schools and individuals who already do these things, and props to them...

but this seems to be a very small percentage of the wing chun world.

I'm almost thinking it's like that book "Who Moved My Cheese?" Is the next wave of the future doing MMA training with Wing Chun methods?

[golgo]

I used to try and make the case around here for wing chun sparring tournments precisely because preparation for such events would raise the game of the participants - but people always found reasons why this wouldn't work.

What are your thoughts on the yearly Lei Tai competition in Hunt Valley, MD (that Master Redmond has posted videos of)? I have said before that I am very new to WC (less than 3 months), but I have set this as a goal for myself (to compete next summer). That may be an unrealistic goal, but I am always in favor of setting my goals too high rather than too low.

Do they have these types of competitions where you are?

[Knifefighter]

I'm almost thinking it's like that book "Who Moved My Cheese?" Is the next wave of the future doing MMA training with Wing Chun methods?

I doubt most MMA fighters would be interested in training this way.

[JPinAZ]

"I AGREE, but I would add that the whole "politics" of wing chun (which almost always includes a link to somebody's "version" of history)...the politics of it all contributes greatly to the lack of proper training methods."

This whole thread was founded on politics and political views (not to mention personal differences). It was a response to another thread regarding a seminar on history. To continue to complain about politics, other people's training methods that differ from our own, and how it is 'ruining WC' is no better (probably worse), and only promotes more politics.
Why not let personal differences go (and politics) and just talk about the training methods & concepts of WC and stop mixing the two? It would be a good step in trying to move atoward a more productive thread..

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I'm almost thinking it's like that book "Who Moved My Cheese?" Is the next wave of the future doing MMA training with Wing Chun methods?" (Wayfaring)


***I WOULD certainly hope so. Or perhaps we should say: Wing Chun methods using MMA-like training. Either way, I see three things as a possible route for wing chun to take in the future:

1) using mma-type training methods as a means of preparation

2) finding out that wing chun could blend well with some other arts as a mixed martial art approach to one's total package.

3) As knifefighter intimates, wing chun making its way into mma comps as part of a crosstrained art.

[TenTigers]

I doubt most MMA fighters would be interested in training this way.
that is not the point.
The point is-whether WING CHUN fighters would be interested in training this way.
Thus-becoming Wing Chun/MMA fighters, not the other way around.
The idea is to bring the modern,current training methodology to TCMA schools.
this has nothing to do with technique. It has to do with trainig and the willingness of the teachers to implement that training in their respective schools.

[Wayfaring]

I doubt most MMA fighters would be interested in training this way.

I'm not saying try to convince a local pro/am fighter to do chi sau sessions for an hour and a half and have tea. They already have their competition teams they are training with. MMA fighters are developed.

The pro guys get really fickle anyway, leave their teams they developed under and tend to gravitate towards privates with only the best in any category and having a select small group to train with.

If an existing WC school can get a group to train hands realistically and develop a team, that's the start. I'm sure most schools with decent wing chun could do something better than the scrubby MMA schools that are popping up. The next problem that will exist is quality control in so-called MMA schools.

I mean, you did a little bit of maybe not-so-great wing chun, left it and trained BJJ and MMA. That's not the only path. There's better stuff there in wing chun.

[JPinAZ]

I agree with hard-core training, good cardio, stregthening, etc for any MA. I am curious what MMA-training methods are WC player to take up?
Isn't it more the individual's focus and desire in thier trianing that makes the difference? I am not sure WC training methods aren't any worse than MMA, it's more the focus and intensity that matters most? (of course, along with trianing against quality opponents, but that's kinda the same thing).

I've met some 'MMA guys' that most likely couldn't fight thier way out of a paper bag, and WC guys that really can fight. What I am trying to get at is, I don't think it's really a fault of inproper training methods that are art-specific (but I would agree they exist), but more the mentality of the individual training - MMA, WC or otherwise.

[JPinAZ]

If an existing WC school can get a group to train hands realistically and develop a team, that's the start. I'm sure most schools with decent wing chun could do something better than the scrubby MMA schools that are popping up. The next problem that will exist is quality control in so-called MMA schools.

I agree 100% with this. I think this points more to the focus and intensity level of the training at the school and not necessarily a fault of the art itself.

[Knifefighter]

I'm not saying try to convince a local pro/am fighter to do chi sau sessions for an hour and a half and have tea. They already have their competition teams they are training with. MMA fighters are developed.

Sorry, my bad. I thought you were saying MMA fighters would be training with WC methods.




I mean, you did a little bit of maybe not-so-great wing chun, left it and trained BJJ and MMA. That's not the only path. There's better stuff there in wing chun.

When you've gone out and tested your training in all the venues I I have done with mine, then you can judge whether or not my WC training was somehow inferior compared to other WC training methods. Until that point, you are just making clueless assumptions and talking out your a$$.

[TenTigers]

When you've gone out and tested your training in all the venues I I have done with mine, then you can judge whether or not my WC training was somehow inferior compared to other WC training methods. Until that point, you are just making clueless assumptions.

it's pretty easy for us to make these assumptions as your posts indicate that you seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Frankly, up till now, I wasn't even aware that you had trained in any Chinese Martial Arts.
Don't get me wrong-I have a great respect for you as a fighter for what you have done, constantly testing and pushing yourself. Your resume speaks for itself. It's just that you have never mentioned your CMA experience, and from your posts, one gets the impression that you are simply bashing CMA without having actually trained in it.

[m1k3]

I mean, you did a little bit of maybe not-so-great wing chun, left it and trained BJJ and MMA. That's not the only path. There's better stuff there in wing chun.



That could be me except that it is BJJ only. As for the better stuff in wing chun, I'm going to assume it's there. That being the case why is the good stuff given out in tiny little quantities? I learned significantly more useful stuff in my 1st 6 months of BJJ than I did in wing chun. :(

[taojkd]

That could be me except that it is BJJ only. As for the better stuff in wing chun, I'm going to assume it's there. That being the case why is the good stuff given out in tiny little quantities? I learned significantly more useful stuff in my 1st 6 months of BJJ than I did in wing chun. :(

MMA, BJJ, FMA, and Wing Chun. I have found wing chun in a lot of different striking arts. From FMA to the boxing/mt in MMA and i find it makes me a better fighter. I think that there is a lot of chun in MMA striking. A lot of counter punching and clinching techniques that are not unique to wing chun, but the sense of touch method of training them is.

To say that you have learned more useful stuff in your 1st 6 months of BJJ than in WC is a very subjective statement. One could learn more about striking (in general) in 6 months of WC than at an MMA school. I did. Depends on the instructors teaching methods and the students willingness to test his/her skills in a live environment (i.e. NOT chi-sau)

[Wayfaring]

I agree with hard-core training, good cardio, stregthening, etc for any MA. I am curious what MMA-training methods are WC player to take up?

Cardio / strength is sometimes included in sessions or sometimes just put as a separate class on the schedule, as it has global appeal.

In addition to hands, which a good WC school should be able to transition into easily, other skills necessary to train are clinch range drills (which a good wing chun bridge should also help with), drills with a backstop like a cage or padded wall, takedowns and defenses, and ground skills. Some of those might require outside expertise. If you train them, even some, you learn to defend against them better realistically. Or if there are "purists" only train that for a fight team or something.

As far as training methods, a few general suggestions:

A good boxing ring timer that you can turn on an interval. Integrate 6 minute round "live" application sparring of what you're training. Do that for every class, every technique
Open mat times on schedule - supported by a culture of getting advanced people to attend. Timed round sparring.
Cardio / strength class that's tough - like a Crossfit "Fight Gone Bad" workout type
Spar with gear - at least 14 oz gloves, and also with MMA gloves for different sessions. Use timer for rounds sparring.




Isn't it more the individual's focus and desire in thier trianing that makes the difference? I am not sure WC training methods aren't any worse than MMA, it's more the focus and intensity that matters most? (of course, along with trianing against quality opponents, but that's kinda the same thing).

Partially, yes that is what makes the difference. However, there are some skillsets that if they are not developed leave a huge gap to be exploited. Training and intensity and being well-rounded too is better.



I've met some 'MMA guys' that most likely couldn't fight thier way out of a paper bag, and WC guys that really can fight. What I am trying to get at is, I don't think it's really a fault of inproper training methods that are art-specific (but I would agree they exist), but more the mentality of the individual training - MMA, WC or otherwise.
The local shows many times get really bad because they throw in 18 year olds with 3 months of any overall training. Even so, it's like throwing someone in a river to teach them to swim. You get these 20 year olds with 10 fight amateur records. It forces intensity and focus. They tend to improve quickly.

It's not so much art-specific as it is mentality-specific as you mention. But anyways those are a couple of ideas that may or may not be useful.

[Wayfaring]

When you've gone out and tested your training in all the venues I I have done with mine, then you can judge whether or not my WC training was somehow inferior compared to other WC training methods. Until that point, you are just making clueless assumptions and talking out your a$$.

Yes, I am totally making assumptions about your WC training. I don't know if they are completely clueless as they are somewhat based on your posts, but OK. It's just my impression that there's a lot more better stuff out there available in wing chun than what you experienced in wing chun. But it's just an impression as I know next to nothing about your WC training background.

Your BJJ experience is a more known quantity under Caique, as is your Dog Bros. and small show experience - all of which gives you cred speaking on the topic of MMA training, aliveness weapons, and BJJ.

So anyway not to focus on individuals any suggestions from your experience on specific training methods a WC school should implement to bring it into what would be effective in today's environment?

[Wayfaring]

That could be me except that it is BJJ only. As for the better stuff in wing chun, I'm going to assume it's there. That being the case why is the good stuff given out in tiny little quantities? I learned significantly more useful stuff in my 1st 6 months of BJJ than I did in wing chun. :(

You know, I don't know why it develops slower. Good stuff in tiny little quantities may be all that can be digested at one sitting or something. But I certainly have heard from people a whole lot better than me in WC that it takes longer to develop skill in WC. I like both actually - BJJ and WC. I don't want WC to become obsolete - I've learned awesome things in it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You develop faster in grappling systems because it is more natural and easier to get "good" at, probably because you can go all out from almost the very beginning.
That and no one is trying to smash your face in.

[sihing]

You know, I don't know why it develops slower. Good stuff in tiny little quantities may be all that can be digested at one sitting or something. But I certainly have heard from people a whole lot better than me in WC that it takes longer to develop skill in WC. I like both actually - BJJ and WC. I don't want WC to become obsolete - I've learned awesome things in it.

I've come to realize that learning what WC/VT has to offer is complex and very hard (probably why it is not meant to be learned by the masses, and if so, then one has to modify it to make it easier to absorb, which leads to the problems we have today in the art), but the application of it is much simplier. It's a very precise art form, with most everything not very natural for people to learn (elbows in, facing, centerling aim and awareness, etc...). Also the ideas and concepts it promotes and teaches us are very different from what people think about regarding combat and the such, so there is sometimes a problem with people understanding exactly what they are learning and why. People also become bored with the repeating of drills, with the idea of absorbing the subtle attributes the art teaches us. Plus, skill in striking IMO is harder to develop and apply than skill in grappling, since in striking, one has a harder time controlling an opponent since he has more mobility and access to his tools. When grappling with someone, and taking them down takes away their mobility and what they can do to counter you, unless of course they have the same skills you do in that area.

James

[sihing]

You develop faster in grappling systems because it is more natural and easier to get "good" at, probably because you can go all out from almost the very beginning.
That and no one is trying to smash your face in.

Couldn't agree more:)

[Knifefighter]

LOL @ grappling being more easily learned than striking. That is a completely false statement.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What are your thoughts on the yearly Lei Tai competition in Hunt Valley, MD (that Master Redmond has posted videos of)? I have said before that I am very new to WC (less than 3 months), but I have set this as a goal for myself (to compete next summer). That may be an unrealistic goal, but I am always in favor of setting my goals too high rather than too low.

Do they have these types of competitions where you are?


***THAT'S a good one to go, yeah. No, these types of events don't exist here in NYC to my knowledge.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I AGREE, but I would add that the whole "politics" of wing chun (which almost always includes a link to somebody's "version" of history)...the politics of it all contributes greatly to the lack of proper training methods."

This whole thread was founded on politics and political views (not to mention personal differences). It was a response to another thread regarding a seminar on history. To continue to complain about politics, other people's training methods that differ from our own, and how it is 'ruining WC' is no better (probably worse), and only promotes more politics.
Why not let personal differences go (and politics) and just talk about the training methods & concepts of WC and stop mixing the two? It would be a good step in trying to move atoward a more productive thread..


***YOU'RE the one who's making this personal, JP...

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The point is-whether WING CHUN fighters would be interested in training this way. Thus-becoming Wing Chun/MMA fighters, not the other way around.
The idea is to bring the modern,current training methodology to TCMA schools.
this has nothing to do with technique. It has to do with trainig and the willingness of the teachers to implement that training in their respective schools."


***Spot on, Ten Tigers...

[sanjuro_ronin]

LOL @ grappling being more easily learned than striking. That is a completely false statement.

Not really, think about it.
We grapple as kids, sure its hardly scientific or trained.
Its just more natural.
Heck Behring said as much in a seminar over here once, Fabiano told me the same thing.
Most grapplers would agree that learning to grapple is more natural, hence easier, than learning to drive your fist into someones vitals.
Not sure why you would think otherwise to be truthful.

[sihing]

LOL @ grappling being more easily learned than striking. That is a completely false statement.

I don't think anyone said anything about one being easier or harder to "Learn". Movement is movement, if one has a easy time learning movement then it shouldn't matter if it is from the stand up POV or grappling POV. The thing is the skills developed and then applied are different. It's easier IMO to apply grappling, like sanjoro mentioned, because it is more natural to clinch and grab/hold on to someone than to actually set them up and KO them with skill. Of course anything learned in MA to a high level of skill is not "easy". Nothing is easy if you want to be good at it.


James

[Knifefighter]

I don't think anyone said anything about one being easier or harder to "Learn". Movement is movement, if one has a easy time learning movement then it shouldn't matter if it is from the stand up POV or grappling POV. The thing is the skills developed and then applied are different. It's easier IMO to apply grappling, like sanjoro mentioned, because it is more natural to clinch and grab/hold on to someone than to actually set them up and KO them with skill. Of course anything learned in MA to a high level of skill is not "easy". Nothing is easy if you want to be good at it.

How much competitive grappling have you done? How many grapplers have you trained? None? Yet, you think you are qualified to speculate on grappling being easier?

Here's a news flash for you. If anything, striking is easier to learn.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How much competitive grappling have you done? How many grapplers have you trained? None? Yet, you think you are qualified to speculate on grappling being easier?

Here's a news flash for you. If anything, striking is easier to learn.

Really?
Hmmm, well, I don't know...truthfully...
I mean, take most guys that have been grappling 1 year and take most that have been striking one year, I think the grappler will have a better grasp of grappling than the strikers of striking.

[JPinAZ]

***YOU'RE the one who's making this personal, JP...

not really, just pointing out the obvious. I notice where all the politics talk is coming from and what sparked it all and who's also complaining the most about it. Kinda the pot calling the kettle black imo. nothing personal about it, I'm just suggesting we turn the heat off on that subject.. it's really pointless

[Ultimatewingchun]

The thrust of what I've been saying on this thread is not directed at any one, or two, or even a dozen different wing chun lineages in particular, JP...

It's just been my experience and my observation through all these years in wing chun (35 years now, to be exact), that the politics more often than not does get in the way of modernizing the training methods...

and secondly, said politics is almost always connected to somebody's preferred version of alleged wing chun history.

Hence the theme of the thread: forget the history, forget the politics - and just concentrate on the TRAINING.

[JPinAZ]

Here's a news flash for you. If anything, striking is easier to learn.

I think the term 'striking' has to be qualified with this statement. Standing and trading punches with some covering up (as seen in many MMA/UFC fights) is pretty easy to learn. Being able to shut someone down, control thier COG and strike them while at the same time taking away thier ability to effectively strike in return is something else entirely. And it's a lot harder to learn IMO.
So it really depends the type of striking one is talking about.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think the term 'striking' has to be qualified with this statement. Standing and trading punches with some covering up (as seen in many MMA/UFC fights) is pretty easy to learn. Being able to shut someone down, control thier COG and strike them while at the same time taking away thier ability to effectively strike in return is something else entirely. And it's a lot harder to learn IMO.
So it really depends the type of striking one is talking about.

Ask the average person to put you in a head lock ( everyone knows what it is) and they will do a half assed one that would actually work on someone with no training.
Ask them to throw their best punch and it will suck ass.

[Knifefighter]

Really?
Hmmm, well, I don't know...truthfully...
I mean, take most guys that have been grappling 1 year and take most that have been striking one year, I think the grappler will have a better grasp of grappling than the strikers of striking.

Are you kidding me? Striking has one dimension, standing... and all the principles are pretty much the same.

Grappling has two dimensions, both standing and on the ground. To complicate matters further, the principles are contradictory from one position to the other... create space on the bottom inferior positions, but shut it down when you are in danger of submission; however, in the bottom guard position, shut down space when working submissions, but open it when in danger of being passed; shut down space from the top; create angles from the guard, but shut them down inside the guard; shut down angles from the bottom non-guard positions, but create them from the top.

Throw in the fact that there are literally thousands of different techniques to remember for these positions and their contradictory principles and grappling is significantly harder to learn.

The fact is that grappling is more suited to beating and dominating an individual opponent, which is why it is more effective sooner than is striking. It is not easier to learn, however.

[Knifefighter]

Ask the average person to put you in a head lock ( everyone knows what it is) and they will do a half assed one that would actually work on someone with no training.
Ask them to throw their best punch and it will suck ass.


That has everything to do with grappling being a more effective method of controlling someone and nothing to do with it being easier to learn.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I have a perspective on this, and it goes right the heart of the training issue question that's also being discussed on this thread:

I teach wing chun and I teach catch (submission) wrestling...and I've noticed that most people pick up the wrestling quicker, ie.- they're better able to actually use what they're learning in a shorter amount of time than is the case with the wing chun....

because in wrestling class, you learn, you drill, you compete...

you learn, you drill, you compete....

In other words, there's a built-in mechanism (and I suspect the same is true with other grappling arts as well) wherein you can "compete" (roll) very frequently, ie. virtually every class, using some limited amount of techniques and principles very soon after learning the moves. And of course the idea is to get to the point relativey quickly wherein you're rolling competitively using a great deal of different principles, strategies, and techniques.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a "sparring" mechanism (rolling) that's introduced into grappling very quickly - as opposed to having to spend many months (possibly a year or two, or three?) learning wing chun forms, chi sao, drills, etc...

before you actually spar competitively.

And this is an unfortunate part of what has been many appoaches to wing chun, imo. I think many schools of wing chun have spent inordinate amounts of time on forms, drills, chi sao, and wooden dummy before doing any serious sparring on a frequent basis.

Another thing to consider here is the fact that you can "tap out" in submission grappling; whereas in sparring it can become an artform in itself trying to teach people how to spar with contact (including headshots and kicks) with some power.

It would seem that it's harder to modulate the pain (and the fear) factor in striking than in grappling.

It doesn't have to be, but unfortunately it often is a problem for many people trying to teach wing chun.

Answer? USE OF GLOVES, HEADGEAR, PADDING, ETC. And more frequent sparring. And less power trips by those who are conducting the classes, ie.- how often do they spar with the students? Do they encourage their students to be competitive with them?

Too many wing chun people have been resistant to these things, even today, it seems to me.

[Knifefighter]

because in wrestling class, you learn, you drill, you compete...

you learn, you drill, you compete....

In other words, there's a built-in mechanism (and I suspect the same is true with other grappling arts as well) wherein you can "compete" (roll) very frequently, ie. virtually every class, using some limited amount of techniques and principles very soon after learning the moves. And of course the idea is to get to the point relativey quickly wherein you're rolling competitively using a great deal of different principles, strategies, and techniques.

Bingo! Boxing and MT are the same way, which is why people get better, faster with those also.

Any program that doesn't have this will inherently be a sub-par program with a large proportion of techniques that are far less effective than the ones that do have this.

Not having this competitive feedback mechanism is directly responsible for the B.S. techniques that creep in and eventually overtake a program.

[Knifefighter]

And LOL at knifefighter trying to turn this into yet another "grappling is better than striking" thread...:rolleyes:

Of course pure grappling is better than pure striking for controlling/beating a person. Even James agrees with that.

Did you hibernate through the 90's where the grapplers were beating the strikers 9 out of 10 times?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Bingo! Boxing and MT are the same way, which is why people get better, faster with those also.

Any program that doesn't have this will inherently be a sub-par program with a large proportion of techniques that are far less effective than the ones that do have this.

Not having this competitive feedback mechanism is directly responsible for the B.S. techniques that creep in and eventually overtake a program." (Knifefighter)


***CAN'T ARGUE WITH THIS, because it's definitely true.

[m1k3]

I think the term 'striking' has to be qualified with this statement. Standing and trading punches with some covering up (as seen in many MMA/UFC fights) is pretty easy to learn. Being able to shut someone down, control thier COG and strike them while at the same time taking away thier ability to effectively strike in return is something else entirely. And it's a lot harder to learn IMO.
So it really depends the type of striking one is talking about.

Being able to shut someone down, control thier COG and limbs setting up takedowns, throws, sweeps and submissions on them while at the same time taking away their ability to effectively to shut you down, control your COG or limbs and set up takedowns, throws, sweeps and submissions in return is something else entirely.

That is closer to the truth. I will agree that it is easier to TRAIN grappling at a higher intensity with less of a chance of injury.

Also your UFC/MMA striking is dealing with striking and the sudden transitions to a grappling game, vertical or horizontal.

[taojkd]

Whether it was JKD or MMA or FMA, I have seen that some people have a natural inclination towards striking, some towards grappling. Some people it feels more natural to toss a guy in a head lock, others instinctively want to bash your head in with their fists. Its entirely subjective.

Personally, i like striking, but i train BJJ cause i need to learn to grapple even though it feels entirely counter-intuitive to how i want to fight.



Not having this competitive feedback mechanism is directly responsible for the B.S. techniques that creep in and eventually overtake a program." (Knifefighter)

Yes.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by JPinAZ
"I think the term 'striking' has to be qualified with this statement. Standing and trading punches with some covering up (as seen in many MMA/UFC fights) is pretty easy to learn. Being able to shut someone down, control thier COG and strike them while at the same time taking away their ability to effectively strike in return is something else entirely. And it's a lot harder to learn IMO.
So it really depends the type of striking one is talking about."

Followed by this from m1k3:

"Being able to shut someone down, control their COG and limbs setting up takedowns, throws, sweeps and submissions on them while at the same time taking away their ability to effectively to shut you down, control your COG or limbs and set up takedowns, throws, sweeps and submissions in return is something else entirely.

That is closer to the truth."

"Also your UFC/MMA striking is dealing with striking and the sudden transitions to a grappling game, vertical or horizontal."


***NOW THIS exchange is a whole thread turner in itself. :cool:

Firstly, I agree with all of what JP said here. It is harder to learn to strike while controlling the opponent and taking his COG away, so that he can't strike back - as opposed to simply trading punches and covering up, which many mma fighters engage in. It is definitely harder to learn, and it takes longer to learn.

Whereas m1k3 relates the "shutdown approach" as simply being a transition to grappling.

IMO, one should strive to learn both approaches, because mma events aside, you don't really want to go to the ground in a real street confrontation if you can avoid it, because too many things can go wrong. So taking a wing chun, close quarter, standing shutdown approach is very big on my list of things to train.

But reality is reality, so learning how to grapple is also a must, imo. Because in real confrontations a transition from striking to a standing clinch or a leg shoot (or some rough equivalent of these things, ala the streetfighter headlock that sanjuro alluded to earlier) could come in a heartbeat...

and the wing chun-only fighter will then be at a major disadvantage.

[Knifefighter]

IMO, one should strive to learn both approaches, because mma events aside, you don't really want to go to the ground in a real street confrontation if you can avoid it, because too many things can go wrong.

Tell that to all the police officers who have been taking suspects to the ground to control them for years.

[sihing]

I have a perspective on this, and it goes right the heart of the training issue question that's also being discussed on this thread:

I teach wing chun and I teach catch (submission) wrestling...and I've noticed that most people pick up the wrestling quicker, ie.- they're better able to actually use what they're learning in a shorter amount of time than is the case with the wing chun....

because in wrestling class, you learn, you drill, you compete...

you learn, you drill, you compete....

In other words, there's a built-in mechanism (and I suspect the same is true with other grappling arts as well) wherein you can "compete" (roll) very frequently, ie. virtually every class, using some limited amount of techniques and principles very soon after learning the moves. And of course the idea is to get to the point relativey quickly wherein you're rolling competitively using a great deal of different principles, strategies, and techniques.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a "sparring" mechanism (rolling) that's introduced into grappling very quickly - as opposed to having to spend many months (possibly a year or two, or three?) learning wing chun forms, chi sao, drills, etc...

before you actually spar competitively.

And this is an unfortunate part of what has been many appoaches to wing chun, imo. I think many schools of wing chun have spent inordinate amounts of time on forms, drills, chi sao, and wooden dummy before doing any serious sparring on a frequent basis.

Another thing to consider here is the fact that you can "tap out" in submission grappling; whereas in sparring it can become an artform in itself trying to teach people how to spar with contact (including headshots and kicks) with some power.

It would seem that it's harder to modulate the pain (and the fear) factor in striking than in grappling.

It doesn't have to be, but unfortunately it often is a problem for many people trying to teach wing chun.

Answer? USE OF GLOVES, HEADGEAR, PADDING, ETC. And more frequent sparring. And less power trips by those who are conducting the classes, ie.- how often do they spar with the students? Do they encourage their students to be competitive with them?

Too many wing chun people have been resistant to these things, even today, it seems to me.

I can't totally agree with what you say above. I agree that in the end, the usage of gloves, headgear, padding and the such is a good thing, but if it is too early in the training, then you are not going to be using what you are learning, plain and simple. If that is the case, then why learn the method if you are unable to use it? I'm all for taking the training intensity and methodology of MMA (since to me it is more about conditioning training than learning a particular style of fighting), and incorporating it into how we learn to be more effective in combat, it is just the timing that I have issues with.

WC is a training method, to be used as one see's fit in application. Sparring is not a test for one learning the WC method; it is more along the lines of learning how to apply the teaching. To me, when I train chi sau for example, that is when I am testing my WC. For example, most people roll in dbl arm chi sau, tan/fok vs. fok/bong, and then reverse rolls; because they are taught this is the way the drill works. Well guess what, I roll this why more so because we make each other do it, rather than just conforming to the standard platform. When my fok is over your tan, the tan guy should feel it collapsing, as the fok is taking the center, to alleviate this, we bong, since this is the usage of bong concept. This is done simultaneously on both sides in reversed roles, not simply as rule to adhere to, but as a way to bring about some coordination and to save time. If your fok is over my tan and I feel no pressure, I then enter your space automatically and take your center to hit, to then tell you why/how that happened. This is just an example of the training concept, to bring about a skill within one that wasn't there before. Why we learn that skill and how it is used in combat is another thread.

The thing we have to watch out for is that we can't look at things like "if he does this, I do that" type of thinking. With all the media coverage of MMA, I think people are falling into this trap, and unfortunately Victor I think you are one of them (please correct me if I am wrong).

You see what they are doing, and say, how would I counter that. I look at them and see a controlled environment, set up to bring about a particular form of competitive fighting, which to me means a skills comparison between two individuals interested in testing their abilities against one another in combat. I have no interest in that, but rather train because it is fun, and gives me some self defence abilities. If I was concerned with how I would fight one of them, I would stop training exclusively in Wing Chun, and start to train in the local MMA gym, to learn how to play the "game". Of course my WC skills would be in use, but I would need to add other skills to be able to deal with them in their own arena.

For me if I never use my skills for the rest of my life, especially when the opportunity arises, then I have succeeded. I already know that I am totally beatable, and that if I wanted to, thru cross training and the such, I could be more totally effective as a fighter. The thing is you "gotta be a moron to want to be a fighter" (to borrow a quote).

James

[Wayfaring]

Are you kidding me? Striking has one dimension, standing... and all the principles are pretty much the same.

Spoken like a true grappler. There are many dimensions in striking. There are several dimensions in striking just to do with your position in relationship to your opponent - front, side, flanking. There's striking from top positions on the ground, striking against a backstop, striking from guard, striking from a clinch - knees, elbows, legs, hands. But I will agree on one point - I've seen a lot of grapplers with one dimensional striking. That's why Marcelo Garcia lost his first MMA fight.



Grappling has two dimensions, both standing and on the ground. To complicate matters further, the principles are contradictory from one position to the other... create space on the bottom inferior positions, but shut it down when you are in danger of submission; however, in the bottom guard position, shut down space when working submissions, but open it when in danger of being passed; shut down space from the top; create angles from the guard, but shut them down inside the guard; shut down angles from the bottom non-guard positions, but create them from the top.

Throw in the fact that there are literally thousands of different techniques to remember for these positions and their contradictory principles and grappling is significantly harder to learn.

That's a really good summary. One of these years some of these things are going to all flow together in harmony.

I don't think either is easy to learn. It all seems like a lot of hard work to me, and after you spend a lot of time in it, some things start to flow a little better. But then there's the next thing to learn that certainly doesn't flow. But it's all a lot of fun and certainly better than just pushing weights around in spandex.

[Wayfaring]

I can't totally agree with what you say above. I agree that in the end, the usage of gloves, headgear, padding and the such is a good thing, but if it is too early in the training, then you are not going to be using what you are learning, plain and simple. If that is the case, then why learn the method if you are unable to use it? I'm all for taking the training intensity and methodology of MMA (since to me it is more about conditioning training than learning a particular style of fighting), and incorporating it into how we learn to be more effective in combat, it is just the timing that I have issues with.

You know the best I can put together I think to learn individual techniques you have to isolate the movements, then gradually add in aliveness. In wing chun, especially working on the bridge, I don't know if padding helps a lot. So I think you have to break down classes and work on a few isolated related skills. Then pad up and work all of them together a little harder with more intensity. That's just an idea I have for an approach. But limiting the movements to a select few while still preserving the aliveness of the scenario to me is what I'm looking for.

[anerlich]

IMO what makes pure striking, in general, difficult is the speed and timing required to perform well against someone else trying to strike you and not be struck.

Pure grappling, especially on the ground, is challenging because of the (more) three-dimensional nature of the fight and the wider variety of possibilities.

The lines are blurred every time you try to "control" someone to hit them, use a wall or the cage, G&P, etc. You won't have G&P opportunities against a reasonable all-rounder unless you can get a takedown, and be able to control the other guy from a top position, i.e. unless you have some basic standup and ground grappling skills. You can't strike on the wall unless you have basic grappling skills, and you won't stay there long if you can't defend against takedowns.

It's true there is some crap MMA out there. Lots of crap WC too.

The best MMA should have seamless integration of striking and grappling in every situation. The sport's probably still too young to have many guys that can actually do that at a high level, but the situation continues to improve.

I believe BJJ is way more complex than WC. Complex != better or worse.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
"IMO, one should strive to learn both approaches, because mma events aside, you don't really want to go to the ground in a real street confrontation if you can avoid it, because too many things can go wrong."

Followed by Knifefighter with this:

"Tell that to all the police officers who have been taking suspects to the ground to control them for years."


***Forget the police, I'll tell you about two near incidents that happened to me within one hour of each other exactly two weeks ago, today...on Friday, November 21ft.

Walking from one appointment to another on my job, and now going through the Fulton Street mall area here in Brooklyn...decide to duck into a very narrow store to get a coffee to go...the coffee-to-go counter is in the back..and I must have brushed some guy as I passed him by (he was standing near the front)...

And I start to hear some real loud talking: "Hey buddy, you just brushed me, what's up with that? You got some sort of a problem"...by a guy who's now standing right in front of me and in my face. (He followed me to the back).

He's standing really close to me - and in a very narrow and crowded store.

I'm angry at this point that he's playing this intimidation game, but also being on alert, and so I say this: "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I brushed you" - but with a very intense look in my eyes - while clearly staring him down at that moment. (His face and mine couldn't have been more than 12 inches apart). My words said one thing - but the body language was basically telling him "_uck you".

But while I was facing him I was also trying to size up his posture, his legs, where his arms were, which vital targets were exposed, (ie.- a knee to the balls, straight blast punches or palm strikes directly to his nose and mouth area), etc.

In other words, sizing him up for striking, if need be. And for taking his space away with forward pressure. And for controlling his balance.

Because the last thing I'd want to do in a place like this is go to the ground with this guy if he decided to press the issue into a confrontation. That would be nuts on my part if I could avoid it. If this was going to be a fight I wanted it to be a very quick standing fight and and then a very quick exit.

What happened was that he turned his face away in disgust, and I left the place immediately. The coffee idea was history.

........................................

About 40 minute later, I'm now in the Starbucks on Court Street, (just the other side of the Fulton mall area) - and I decide to go to the bathroom. There are a whole bunch of boxes stacked high in two piles leading to the bathroom. So the passage between them is very narrow - only wide enough for one person at a time to pass through.

I'm on the bowl doing my business about 4-5 minutes later when I hear this:

"Hey you, get out of the bathroom right now"...while whoever he is is pounding on the door and screaming these words at the top of his lungs. (This guy sounded like a friggin' lunatic!)

He continues, again at the top of his lungs, while banging the door again: "Get out now or I'm getting the key!"

Now I'm really p i s s e d off, and I say, loudly: "Hey buddy, I'm on the bowl, and I'm not coming out until I'm ready to come out!"

So about a minute or so later I'm ready to come out, not knowing what to expect when I open the door, other than the fact that this clearly could turn into a fight. This guy sounds like he's crazy, and I'm in no mood for any more of this garbage.

He's standing right between the boxes as I come out, and blocking the way. (The two piles of stacked boxes were about six feet away from the door to the bathroom - so by the time that I got to where he was standing I not only got a good look at him - but I saw that he had a friend with him....behind him about another five feet from where he was, and leaning on some of the other boxes at that area, although not paying much attention to me.

But Mr. lunatic was. So I walked up to where he was standing - and he didn't budge; he's now purposely blocking my way, and we're pretty much nose-to-nose (nothing's being said as of yet).

I start to back away slowly, and he starts to walk through the two piles - when I decided to stop. And I'm just staring him down now, silently.

And now he says very softly and meekly, "Excuse me."

I say, "Sure, no problem" with the same intense "_uck you" stare as I back up real slow and turn to let him pass...and we always stay basically nose-to-nose with each other and facing each other head on. He then says, referring to me, "Tough guy". (But again, very quietly and with no real aggression).

He goes into the bathroom and I pass his friend and leave the Starbucks.

Again, it would have been insanity to go to the ground (if it came to a fight with this guy) if I could avoid it.

Is it always possible to avoid a clinch or takedown to a groundfight? Of course not. But there's lots of wing chun moves that can be used (as well as other types of striking)...to try and keep a fight standing - until the other guy drops.

[TenTigers]

let's also realize that the reason the police take the perp down to the ground is to handcuff him and take him unharmed into custody.

[chusauli]

My real important question to you Vic, is:

Did you wash your hands after you took your dump? Or did you have a surprise for Mr. Lunatic? :)

The oft quoted all fights go to the ground is based on police work - cops take the perp to the ground to get compliance and cuff them, (albeit largely unhurt) as Ric says.

Its not that you're going to the ground and finish a person there in a self defense scenario, especially in tight quarters and outnumbered, or with possible weapons.

Vic, much of the posturing was a good deterrent. In NYC, stuff like this happens everyday.

[Wayfaring]

I never realized it's so hard to get a cup of coffee in NYC.

[Knifefighter]

***Forget the police, I'll tell you about two near incidents that happened to me within one hour of each other exactly two weeks ago, today...on Friday, November 21ft.

LOL @ using two incidents where there was no actual physical confrontation to make a case for not going to the ground. Talk about theoretical non-fighting.

[Knifefighter]

The oft quoted all fights go to the ground is based on police work - cops take the perp to the ground to get compliance and cuff them, (albeit largely unhurt) as Ric says.

Its not that you're going to the ground and finish a person there in a self defense scenario, especially in tight quarters and outnumbered, or with possible weapons.

LOL again. Where do you guys get this stuff?

Do you think the police somehow don't have to worry about weapons, being outnumbered or being in tight quarters?

And if taking someone to the ground is the most effective way to control and cuff them, doesn't it seem like that would also be the most effective way to control or finish someone who is trying to hurt you?

[chusauli]

In police work, you have a partner or back up.

You want the person on the ground first where they comply, while you with weapon, command them to kneel, legs crossed, with hands on head, until further help arrives. If you have a partner, you could simply have them lie on the ground and snap cuffs on them.

At least this is what I learned in my combat shooting classes. But of course, I am no LE guy.

In both of Vic's cases, he was wise not to go to the ground.

[Knifefighter]

In police work, you have a partner or back up.
Many departments have solo street patrols. There are hundreds of thousands of incidents where officers have had physical confrontations with suspects without backup.



You want the person on the ground first where they comply, while you with weapon, command them to kneel, legs crossed, with hands on head, until further help arrives. If you have a partner, you could simply have them lie on the ground and snap cuffs on them.
That would be nice. Too bad that luxury is not always available.


In both of Vic's cases, he was wise not to go to the ground.
Like I said... talk about theoretical non-fighting. There wasn't even a physical altercation. You have no idea what would have happened one way or the other.

[chusauli]

As a rational, law-abiding human being...you think Vic should have gotten into a fight? :confused:

Most fights are stupid - if you win, you are subject to legal aftermath. Is that all worthwhile? For a cup of coffee? Or bumping into someone in a crowded coffee shop? Or some jerk who is impatient and disturbing his dump? Is that really worthwhile?

Makes me wonder? The fuse that short; that trigger so easy to pull?

[chisauking]

Yeah, Victor, I'm disappointed at your lack of action.

Should have got into the guard position after your dump and show the jerk what cacth wrestling is all about.

So what if you have to roll in some 5hit, little bit of dirt never hurt anyone.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The replies to my last post are definitely making me laugh, but for different reasons.

Look, Dale...

Of course these are situations wherein no fight occurred. But that's not the point. The point is that in both situations if a fight did occur - it would have been in my best interest to do all that I could to make sure that I don't go to the ground.

Given the circumstances that I described - how could you possibly disagree with that?

[Knifefighter]

As a rational, law-abiding human being...you think Vic should have gotten into a fight? :confused:

Of course I don't advocate getting into fights at the drop of a hat like that. Be polite, be respectful, don't do the macho posturing bullsh!it and you won't even p!ss people off in the first place.


Most fights are stupid - if you win, you are subject to legal aftermath. Is that all worthwhile? For a cup of coffee? Or bumping into someone in a crowded coffee shop? Or some jerk who is impatient and disturbing his dump? Is that really worthwhile?

What is stupid is extrapolating from a non-fight into what should or should have been done if an actual fight would have occurred.



Makes me wonder? The fuse that short; that trigger so easy to pull?
Two potential confrontations, even without an actual fight occurring, in a two hour span is a very short fuse in my book. Makes me think there is a lot of macho posturing going on.

[Knifefighter]

Yeah, Victor, I'm disappointed at your lack of action.

Should have got into the guard position after your dump and show the jerk what cacth wrestling is all about.

So what if you have to roll in some 5hit, little bit of dirt never hurt anyone.

LOL... another theoretical non-fighter trying to extrapolate from his non-fighting experiences.

The fact is that a sh!tload of confrontations end up on the ground, whether you want them to or not... and 99% of the time there is no dog sh!t, needles, or broken glass laying all over the place.

[Knifefighter]

The replies to my last post are definitely making me laugh, but for different reasons.

Look, Dale...

Of course these are situations wherein no fight occurred. But that's not the point. The point is that in both situations if a fight did occur - it would have been in my best interest to do all that I could to make sure that I don't go to the ground.

Given the circumstances that I described - how could you possibly disagree with that?

You are supposedly a grappling "instructor" and you don't see how each of those situations was perfect for grappling and could have saved you time, effort, risk and legal expenses if an actual confrontation would have occurred?

Hmmm... OK.

Maybe you need to work with someone who understands the real world applications of grappling instead of getting your training from the carny guys.

[Kansuke]

LOL... another theoretical non-fighter trying to extrapolate from his non-fighting experiences.

The fact is that a sh!tload of confrontations end up on the ground, whether you want them to or not... and 99% of the time there is no dog sh!t, needles, or broken glass laying all over the place.




Great post, sir!

[TenTigers]

and 99% of the time there is no dog sh!t, needles, or broken glass laying all over the place.

obviously, you don't live in my neighborhood.:p

[TenTigers]

Great post, sir!

suckup:rolleyes:

[chisauking]

Well, sorreee. I’m no champion street fighter like some on this forum. Like knivefighter said, I’m just a theoretical fighter nobody, who obviously don’t have his ‘countless’ challenge fight experiences to realise that one should voluntarily go to the ground in a dirty filthy toilet, rolling in 5hit & pi55.

Oh well, back to watching The last dragon…..

[LSWCTN1]

LOL... another theoretical non-fighter trying to extrapolate from his non-fighting experiences.

The fact is that a sh!tload of confrontations end up on the ground, whether you want them to or not... and 99% of the time there is no dog sh!t, needles, or broken glass laying all over the place.

gotta jump in on this - i agree the majority of fights do go to the ground, for whatever reason

but....

surely the majority of fights are alcohol related, usually in a pub/bar etc, even you must see that going to the floor in a pub/outside on the pavement is silly.

the guys mates will jump in with kicks once you are rolling around the floor

i'd sooner be standing

[Kansuke]

suckup:rolleyes:




Don't be jealous. If you make a good post I'll recognize it!

[Kansuke]

the guys mates will jump in with kicks once you are rolling around the floor






But they won't touch you as long as you are standing... :rolleyes:



This old line is like the myth that bears can't run downhill or such nonsense.

[Kansuke]

Well, sorreee. I’m no champion street fighter like some on this forum. Like knivefighter said, I’m just a theoretical fighter nobody, who obviously don’t have his ‘countless’ challenge fight experiences to realise that one should voluntarily go to the ground in a dirty filthy toilet, rolling in 5hit & pi55.

Oh well, back to watching The last dragon…..



Do you live in the sewers? Are you a giant rat training your young turtle students?

[TenTigers]

Don't be jealous. If you make a good post I'll recognize it!
nah, I was just messin with ya!:D

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I don't get it.

Why go to the ground IF you can avoid it?

In a confined space with questionable obstacles (exposed plumbing, stall cornerbeams,) surely there's some benefit to using the wall to your advantage, either for striking OR grappling.

With multiple opponents, surely there's some benefit to being on your feet and mobile...

What's the big deal with working on staying standing?

I'm not saying groundwork is bad, just that standup isn't bad, either.

[taojkd]

I don't get it.

Why go to the ground IF you can avoid it?

In a confined space with questionable obstacles (exposed plumbing, stall cornerbeams,) surely there's some benefit to using the wall to your advantage, either for striking OR grappling.

With multiple opponents, surely there's some benefit to being on your feet and mobile...

What's the big deal with working on staying standing?

I'm not saying groundwork is bad, just that standup isn't bad, either.

I agree completely, and most of the jkd, cqc, and tac weapons community does also. They all train BJJ/catch wrestling/judo but they all agree that if the fight went that far, you screwed up (unless you just get jumped from behind and hit the ground immediately).

Also, finishing the guy off while on the ground doesn't count. I'm referring to an opponent that is still a threat and rolling with him on the ground.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
"The replies to my last post are definitely making me laugh, but for different reasons.

Look, Dale...

Of course these are situations wherein no fight occurred. But that's not the point. The point is that in both situations if a fight did occur - it would have been in my best interest to do all that I could to make sure that I don't go to the ground.

Given the circumstances that I described - how could you possibly disagree with that?"

........................................

Followed By this from Knifefighter:

"You are supposedly a grappling 'instructor' and you don't see how each of those situations was perfect for grappling and could have saved you time, effort, risk and legal expenses if an actual confrontation would have occurred?

Hmmm... OK.

Maybe you need to work with someone who understands the real world applications of grappling instead of getting your training from the carny guys."


***WHAT a nonsense troll response this is. You'll say just about anything in order to get noticed and responded to around here, now won't you?


I THINK I'LL JUST GO BACK TO THE BASIC FLOW OF WHERE THIS THREAD WAS GOING - AND IGNORE THE FOOLISHNESS OF MR. "I'M THE GREATEST AND THE REST OF YOU GUYS CLEARLY SUCK"...

....and hopefully, others who were engaged here will follow suit.

[Knifefighter]

***WHAT a nonsense troll response this is. You'll say just about anything in order to get noticed and responded to around here, now won't you?

As a grappling instructor who is supposedly concerned with real-life applications, you should realize the advantages of when to grapple. You should also be able to distinguish between grappling on the ground vs. grappling standing and when it is advantageous to use each of these.

[Knifefighter]

I agree completely, and most of the jkd, cqc, and tac weapons community does also. They all train BJJ/catch wrestling/judo but they all agree that if the fight went that far, you screwed up (unless you just get jumped from behind and hit the ground immediately).
LOL... seeing as I've been part of that community for a couple of decades now, I can safely say we don't all think that way. There are, however, a lot of theoretical non-fighters in that community who do think that way though.


Also, finishing the guy off while on the ground doesn't count. I'm referring to an opponent that is still a threat and rolling with him on the ground.

1- Lots of fights go to the ground, whether you want them to or not. You'd think with the advent of the ubiquitous street fight footage on the web these days that even the theoretical non-fighters would have figured that out... looks like many of them haven't though.
2- There are many times when it is a huge advantage to take the fight to the ground.
3- Grappling doesn't necessarily mean it has to go to the ground.
4- It is very advantageous to have the skills to both take a fight to the ground at will, as well as to get off the ground at will also.
5- If you have ground skills, one of the easiest ways to neutralize an opponent is to take him to the ground.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Would like to respond to a post that James made several pages earlier. Here are some excerpts:

"I agree that in the end, the usage of gloves, headgear, padding and the such is a good thing, but if it is too early in the training, then you are not going to be using what you are learning, plain and simple." (J)

***AND just what do you consider too early?

.................................................. .....


"I'm all for taking the training intensity and methodology of MMA (since to me it is more about conditioning training than learning a particular style of fighting), and incorporating it into how we learn to be more effective in combat, it is just the timing that I have issues with." (J)

***AND again, what do you consider too early?

.................................................. ...

"WC is a training method, to be used as one see's fit in application. Sparring is not a test for one learning the WC method; it is more along the lines of learning how to apply the teaching." (J)

***OF COURSE sparring is a test of one's learning - what else could it be?

.................................................. ....


"To me, when I train chi sau for example, that is when I am testing my WC." (J)

***NO, James, when you do chi sao you are testing a wing chun drill, but you are testing your total wing chun efficiency when you spar or fight.


Followed by a whole dissertation about some chi sao concepts and moves by James:

"For example, most people roll in dbl arm chi sau, tan/fok vs. fok/bong, and then reverse rolls; because they are taught this is the way the drill works. Well guess what, I roll this why more so because we make each other do it, rather than just conforming to the standard platform. When my fok is over your tan, the tan guy should feel it collapsing, as the fok is taking the center, to alleviate this, we bong, since this is the usage of bong concept.....etc.....

I won't go over the rest of James' details about chi sao, but he ended this part of his post with this:

"...This is just an example of the training concept, to bring about a skill within one that wasn't there before. Why we learn that skill and how it is used in combat is another thread."

***PART OF THE POLITICS THAT I WAS REFERRING TO, JAMES, believe it or not. Because this kind of thinking serves to keep various wing chun chi sao "experts" in business, ie.- keep them in POWER.

What do I mean? Waaaay too much emphasis on chi sao and not enough sparring is a big part of the politics of yesterday in the wing chun world that will result (has already resulted?) in wing chun falling behind other arts. imo.

Furthermore, James, you followed your beginning remarks about the "dangers" of sparring too early with a giant chi sao dissertation - and then you'll leave "how it is used in combat" to another thread. This is not just you, James. (So don't take it as a personal attack). But I've seen first hand how this kind of thinking - and I've observed it in other situations I was not directly involved in - can actually become an excuse for not doing the hard training and sparring required for any martial art to remain worthy of the name MARTIAL ART.

And the same applies to the next part of your post, only doubly so:

"The thing we have to watch out for is that we can't look at things like 'if he does this, I do that' type of thinking. With all the media coverage of MMA, I think people are falling into this trap, and unfortunately Victor I think you are one of them (please correct me if I am wrong)." (J)

***WHAT needs correcting is your misconception about the true nature of fighting - and the wing chun POLITICS that such a misconception implies having had a big influence upon your thinking - all of which serves to avoid constant hard training and sparring by insisting that's it's foolish to train against specific kinds of attacks and counters. For example, if one doesn't drill again-and-again against hook punches, roundhouse kicks, double leg shoots, attempts to clinch, etc. (just naming a few scenarios)...one will never be able to defend against them for real. This is wing chun politics at work, since those in power stay there if they're not exposed as being someone who never really learned how to apply his art in SPECIFIC fighting/sparring situations.

WE CAN ONLY THROW THE WING CHUN IS A "CONCEPT-BASED ART" THINKING SO FAR BEFORE IT BECOMES A GIANT EXCUSE NOT TO TRAIN AND TEST OUR ART REALISTICALLY.

But James, you tippped your hand at the end of your post with this:

You see what they are doing, and say, how would I counter that. I look at them and see a controlled environment, set up to bring about a particular form of competitive fighting, which to me means a skills comparison between two individuals interested in testing their abilities against one another in combat. I have no interest in that, but rather train because it is fun, and gives me some self defence abilities." (J)

***OKAY, so you have no interest in it. But other people do, and it's my assertion that without doing these things the art is destined to become just an asterisk within the martial arts world.

[TenTigers]

1- Lots of fights go to the ground, whether you want them to or not. You'd think with the advent of the ubiquitous street fight footage on the web these days that even the theoretical non-fighters would have figured that out... looks like many of them haven't though.
2- There are many times when it is a huge advantage to take the fight to the ground.
3- Grappling doesn't necessarily mean it has to go to the ground.
4- It is very advantageous to have the skills to both take a fight to the ground at will, as well as to get off the ground at will also.
5- If you have ground skills, one of the easiest ways to neutralize an opponent is to take him to the ground.
I think we can all see that KF isn't saying ALL fights go to the ground, nor is he advocating that you should take all fights to the ground.
He is saying that there are circumstances when it will happen, or when it is advantagous for you to take a fight to the ground, and you should develop these crucial skills.
I can agree with that.

[Kansuke]

nah, I was just messin with ya!:D



Well, fair's fair after all...

[Kansuke]

I don't get it.

Why go to the ground IF you can avoid it?.




If that happens to be where you have a relative advantage, why wouldn't you?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I think we can all see that KF isn't saying ALL fights go to the ground, nor is he advocating that you should take all fights to the ground. He is saying that there are circumstances when it will happen, or when it is advantagous for you to take a fight to the ground, and you should develop these crucial skills. I can agree with that." (TT)


***WHICH is no different that what I've been saying all along - we need both approaches. Train to try and keep it standing when the situation would obviously be too dangerous if it goes to the ground - and train for the ground because many fights will indeed go there...and yes, in some instances it might be to your advantage to take the guy down.

These things should is a no-brainer by now, it seems to me.

But when the thread begins to turn because someone wants to go down the "grappling is superior to striking" route..."and btw, I'm an incredible grappler and you wing chun striker guys don't know 5hit"...

then it's time to get the thread back on track.

[TenTigers]

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;899874But when the thread begins to turn because someone wants to go down the "grappling is superior to striking" route..."and btw, I'm an incredible grappler and you wing chun striker guys don't know 5hit"...

then it's time to get the thread back on track.[/QUOTE]

ah. I was going to say,"Then what's the argument all about?"
SSDD

[sihing]

Would like to respond to a post that James made several pages earlier. Here are some excerpts:

"I agree that in the end, the usage of gloves, headgear, padding and the such is a good thing, but if it is too early in the training, then you are not going to be using what you are learning, plain and simple." (J)

***AND just what do you consider too early?

.................................................. .....


"I'm all for taking the training intensity and methodology of MMA (since to me it is more about conditioning training than learning a particular style of fighting), and incorporating it into how we learn to be more effective in combat, it is just the timing that I have issues with." (J)

***AND again, what do you consider too early?

.................................................. ...

"WC is a training method, to be used as one see's fit in application. Sparring is not a test for one learning the WC method; it is more along the lines of learning how to apply the teaching." (J)

***OF COURSE sparring is a test of one's learning - what else could it be?

.................................................. ....


"To me, when I train chi sau for example, that is when I am testing my WC." (J)

***NO, James, when you do chi sao you are testing a wing chun drill, but you are testing your total wing chun efficiency when you spar or fight.


Followed by a whole dissertation about some chi sao concepts and moves by James:

"For example, most people roll in dbl arm chi sau, tan/fok vs. fok/bong, and then reverse rolls; because they are taught this is the way the drill works. Well guess what, I roll this why more so because we make each other do it, rather than just conforming to the standard platform. When my fok is over your tan, the tan guy should feel it collapsing, as the fok is taking the center, to alleviate this, we bong, since this is the usage of bong concept.....etc.....

I won't go over the rest of James' details about chi sao, but he ended this part of his post with this:

"...This is just an example of the training concept, to bring about a skill within one that wasn't there before. Why we learn that skill and how it is used in combat is another thread."

***PART OF THE POLITICS THAT I WAS REFERRING TO, JAMES, believe it or not. Because this kind of thinking serves to keep various wing chun chi sao "experts" in business, ie.- keep them in POWER.

What do I mean? Waaaay too much emphasis on chi sao and not enough sparring is a big part of the politics of yesterday in the wing chun world that will result (has already resulted?) in wing chun falling behind other arts. imo.

Furthermore, James, you followed your beginning remarks about the "dangers" of sparring too early with a giant chi sao dissertation - and then you'll leave "how it is used in combat" to another thread. This is not just you, James. (So don't take it as a personal attack). But I've seen first hand how this kind of thinking - and I've observed it in other situations I was not directly involved in - can actually become an excuse for not doing the hard training and sparring required for any martial art to remain worthy of the name MARTIAL ART.

And the same applies to the next part of your post, only doubly so:

"The thing we have to watch out for is that we can't look at things like 'if he does this, I do that' type of thinking. With all the media coverage of MMA, I think people are falling into this trap, and unfortunately Victor I think you are one of them (please correct me if I am wrong)." (J)

***WHAT needs correcting is your misconception about the true nature of fighting - and the wing chun POLITICS that such a misconception implies having had a big influence upon your thinking - all of which serves to avoid constant hard training and sparring by insisting that's it's foolish to train against specific kinds of attacks and counters. For example, if one doesn't drill again-and-again against hook punches, roundhouse kicks, double leg shoots, attempts to clinch, etc. (just naming a few scenarios)...one will never be able to defend against them for real. This is wing chun politics at work, since those in power stay there if they're not exposed as being someone who never really learned how to apply his art in SPECIFIC fighting/sparring situations.

WE CAN ONLY THROW THE WING CHUN IS A "CONCEPT-BASED ART" THINKING SO FAR BEFORE IT BECOMES A GIANT EXCUSE NOT TO TRAIN AND TEST OUR ART REALISTICALLY.

But James, you tippped your hand at the end of your post with this:

You see what they are doing, and say, how would I counter that. I look at them and see a controlled environment, set up to bring about a particular form of competitive fighting, which to me means a skills comparison between two individuals interested in testing their abilities against one another in combat. I have no interest in that, but rather train because it is fun, and gives me some self defence abilities." (J)

***OKAY, so you have no interest in it. But other people do, and it's my assertion that without doing these things the art is destined to become just an asterisk within the martial arts world.

"what is too early" - when one has no physical ability to demonstrate what the art is teaching us, in other words they have not yet engrained within themselves the concepts, principles, and techniques that WC teaches us. If one spars at this stage of development, they will not be utilizing what they are learning on any level except that of the very basics, like a man/wu sau guard and some sort of side on/square neutral stance. To me if you are not using what you are learning, then you either need more practice or you should take up some other MA that fullfills your needs.

What is chi sau? For you it may be the testing of a drill, for me it is but one drill of many that teaches me what the art is there to teach us in the first place, my example was but one of many. The goal is not to master the drill, which is only a means to an end, but to use it, then disgard it unless further enhancement is needed.

What is sparring? For you a testing of your WC efficiency in a fight, for me just another training drill to teach me timing, entry, distancing and maybe how to take a hit. It is not fighting, nor self defence, but I can see how some would see it that way.

What is WC politics? Those that promote their beliefs and attitudes as absolute truth, to only have others that follow them to further spread those beliefs and attitudes, mostly for the purposes of ego gratification and monetary gain. Nothing really to do with true Martial Arts training and spreading a method in a honest way to those willing to learn.

Vic, I'm all for hard training, sparring, pad work, crosstraining and the such. But all of us have only so much time and energy to spend on WC, as most of us are hobbiest at this. My thing is to enjoy the journey, learn some cool stuff along the way, and make some friends while doing it. I try not to take it all too seriously. If someone wants to fight me, I just walk away, as anything can happen and I prefer to be around for a few more years, rather than letting my ego take control and do something stupid (Kevin G's thread is an example of what can happen when confrontations take place, and the consequences afterward).

James

[chisauking]

You see, the confusion arises from the fact that some members define words differently.

For example:

Fighting = sparring.

chisau = dead drills.

They can't accept others may see it differently.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That has everything to do with grappling being a more effective method of controlling someone and nothing to do with it being easier to learn.

Hmmm, well...we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
I may be confusing "more natural" with "easier" and perhaps easier is the wrong word here.
I just find that people tend to pick up grappling better and get better at grappling sooner, as compared t6o striking.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In regards to "good time" to get on the ground:
usually very few people advocate going to the ground VS multiple attackers, however, there was a case when I was bouncing that, while "escorting" on guy out, he buddy tried to blind side me.
Now, he missed and I got a shot in and before I knew in, in the confusion, the other guy got me and we were on the ground.
Normally in that situation I try to get back up ASAP, but we ended up near a wall and he was on top and a tad heavier so I wrapped him in my guard.
Maybe it was a little voice telling me "cover up he has friends", but al of a suuden al I see are feet and shoes come at us.
So I use him as a shield.
He got most of the shots, including on the was gonna be a nice stomp to my face that I saw coming.
Back up arrived and I had just a few scratches and a torn shirt.
I know this though, with his "back up", if I had gotten the mount, I probably would have gotten soccer kicked in the face for it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Interesting point, sanjuro...I guess the moral of this whole story (and all the stories so far on this thread) is that YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARD FOR ANYTHING. :cool:

Training for multiple possibilities is key; and yes, people like James, chisauking, etc...one of the great benefits of the chi sao "drill" (platform training) is that it can become very spontaneous based upon what you FEEL and see that might be different than the last time you did it, or the time before that - and in very close quarters (limb-to-limb contact)...and body-to-body contact is oftentimes not far behind (ie.- grappling).

All the more reason why getting past the politics of "This is the wing chun way and don't deviate from what our lineage has taught in the past" is essential.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Interesting point, sanjuro...I guess the moral of this whole story (and all the stories so far on this thread) is that YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARD FOR ANYTHING. :cool:

Training for multiple possibilities is key; and yes, people like James, chisauking, etc...one of the great benefits of the chi sao "drill" (platform training) is that it can become very spontaneous based upon what you FEEL and see that might be different than the last time you did it, or the time before that - and in very close quarters (limb-to-limb contact)...and body-to-body contact is oftentimes not far behind (ie.- grappling).

All the more reason why getting past the politics of "This is the wing chun way and don't deviate from what our lineage has taught in the past" is essential.

Yeah, **** happens and you can never predict the flow of a fight, ever.
I mean, the only constant in any fight is you.
You opponent changes, height, weight, reach, mental state, pain tolerance, fighting ablility, etc
The environment changes, the clothing, the surface, the lighting,etc.
I have never been a big fan of doing anything based on "presupositions".

[m1k3]

This thread is going in several directions and I think all of them are good.

Can we agree that one of the main purposes of training is to learn how to fight?

Can we agree that fighting in a ring or some sort of competitive event is a type of fighting?

I agree it is not the streets but to a large degree it is the closest that a sane person can get on a voluntary basis.

Multiple attackers and weapons keep being brought up but I would like to ignore them for a moment. If you can't beat one person how are you going to beat three or if he has a weapon? You can't, so lets focus on some basics for the time being.

So, developing fighting skill should be one of the objectives of a martial art or a combative sport. All of these arts and sports are going to bring some sort of cultural or sportive rules based baggage with them.

However fighting skills, trained in an alive manner against fully resisting opponents, should be the meat and potatoes of your training. Also competition is a valid reality test of your arts fighting skills.

We need to lose the striking/grappling duality and realize that they are two sides of the same coin and in truth it is almost impossible to truly separate them.

I think that MMA has shown that people who train only one side of the coin, either just striking or just grappling, are going to be lacking the tools needed to win against a well rounded fighter.

So to echo what Victor has said (I think?:rolleyes:) if Wing Chun is going to remain a valid fighting art it will need to drop some of the cultural baggage and be willing to expand it training methods and even compete in some of the combative sport events such as lei tai, san shou, kick boxing or mma. (Please forgive any spelling errors) This doesn't mean every student should be competing but there is no reason they couldn't be training like they might compete.

Is every one going to agree on how to do this? Nope, but some are already starting to make the change and each of these experiments will lead to new methods and concepts that can be employed by the entire wing chun community.

Oh yeah, one pet peeve. Grappling does not always mean rolling on the ground. Both judo and greco wrestling have very good techniques for putting your opponent on the ground, hard while remaining standing.

:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Very good post, m1k1....

And yeah, some standing locks, throws, and sweeps are real important to develop - along with knowledge of how to counter such moves. Knee-on-chest striking of the man you may have put down is another.

[taojkd]

Originally Posted by taojkd
I agree completely, and most of the jkd, cqc, and tac weapons community does also. They all train BJJ/catch wrestling/judo but they all agree that if the fight went that far, you screwed up (unless you just get jumped from behind and hit the ground immediately).

LOL... seeing as I've been part of that community for a couple of decades now, I can safely say we don't all think that way. There are, however, a lot of theoretical non-fighters in that community who do think that way though.


Theoretical non-fighters, huh? Like Vunak or Bustillo? Ground fighting is an essential skill, but end the fight at the range a confrontation starts. i.e. Fight starts at clinching range, end it at that range. Don't take a fight to the ground 'cause your a grappler'. Take the fight to the ground with a devastating judo throw is another thing entirely (i.e. learn better tools for that range). This was the point i was trying to make and, as I understand it, the point of the thread.
Train at each range of fighting, but cross train in other WC styles (lose the lineage ego) or martial arts styles to test your skills/tools at each range. This way in a fight you are less likely to go "well i need to go to the ground cause i don't have any decent tools at the range i am fighting"


We need to lose the striking/grappling duality and realize that they are two sides of the same coin and in truth it is almost impossible to truly separate them.

Agreed.

[Knifefighter]

Ground fighting is an essential skill, but end the fight at the range a confrontation starts. i.e. Fight starts at clinching range, end it at that range.

If you think you can always do that, you are definitely a theoretical non-fighter.

As far as purposely taking the fight to the ground, there are many times a person should do that if that is a range where he has skills.

On the other hand, of course a WC guy would not want to go to the ground. Unless he had trained in a ground system, he would be clueless about what to do there.

[taojkd]

If you think you can always do that, you are definitely a theoretical non-fighter.

Its not thinking that I can always do that, its more an attitude of continuously refining the techniques and learning more about that particular range of fighting. Its an unattainable goal to motivate you to train more/harder. I'll never be the next Royce Gracie or GSP or Bruce Lee but try to train to be that good.


This doesn't mean every student should be competing but there is no reason they couldn't be training like they might compete.

Even if your a WC guy and just want to get better at refining your tools at a particular range i.e. getting owned by some one in another style and realizing (for example), ****, i need to learn better takedowns so i can learn better takedown defense. If you have that attitude you are less likely to worry about "lineage this" and "style that".

Again, isnt that the point of the thread? Lose the lineage attitude and find newer ways to test your tools and refine them?

[TenTigers]

I think what Bruce Lee was getting at before JKD was trademarked, marketed and polluted, was having the neccesary tools to fight at all ranges-kicks, punches,trap/clinch.standup grappling, throws, groundfighting. JKD was an extension of his Wing Chun. Just as Yngvei Malmsteen's hybrid neoclassical metal is an extension of classical music-particularly Paganinni.
I also thnk any and every style, if they want to consider themselves complete, should be competant in all ranges of combat.
Sure, we may argue, "Well then it isn't Wing Chun, or SPM, or whatever"
No, but it is MY WC, SPM, etc. Or, if you don't want to say that, you can say it is MY curriculum, and the different methods complement each other. I teach Hung Kuen, but I also have Mohnguok Seut Gow in the training. I haven't changed Hung-Ga, we are predominantly a stand-up system, but should it occur, my guys do learn how to lock, throw, and fight on the ground. All systems must evolve, or fall bay the wayside.

[Wayfaring]

Just as Yngvei Malmsteen's hybrid neoclassical metal is an extension of classical music-particularly Paganinni.

Not a huge Yngvie fan - but scope out MattRach's extension of Pachelbel's Canon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owAj5LiXG5w

[First Blood]

Its logical that people who advocate stand-up have probably spent years developing their skills as would the theoretical fighters.

There will always be those who have no need or who can win against whoever on their feet but some stand-up fighters dont or wont train ground because they either dont have enough spare time to learn or they dont want to start all over again and have to face the embarrassment of being taken to submission by novice grapplers. But i'm sure deep down most who actually fight are aware they have a weakness that can be exploited.

Its easier to mentally face what you have than to admit a weakness, afterall a lot of us including myself have a livelyhood riding on advocating stand-up.

For peace of mind i would love to have the option of 4-wheel drive on my car even though most of the time i get by just fine.

As for the theorectical fighters, well theorectically they cant loose to a grappler as they would always knock them out before they were taken down. But theorectically if the unthinkable should happen, theorectically their skills developed from their stand-up will work just as effectively on the ground to be able to either escape or win the fight...........theorectically !

Understandibly most of the persistent posters advocating grappling were indeed kung fu theorist before they got their ass whipped by grapplers and the outlet for their bruised ego manifests itself in an overwelming need to inform the WC community of their newly discovered enlightment !

[stonecrusher69]

Its logical that people who advocate stand-up have probably spent years developing their skills as would the theoretical fighters.

There will always be those who have no need or who can win against whoever on their feet but some stand-up fighters dont or wont train ground because they either dont have enough spare time to learn or they dont want to start all over again and have to face the embarrassment of being taken to submission by novice grapplers. But i'm sure deep down most who actually fight are aware they have a weakness that can be exploited.

Its easier to mentally face what you have than to admit a weakness, afterall a lot of us including myself have a livelyhood riding on advocating stand-up.

For peace of mind i would love to have the option of 4-wheel drive on my car even though most of the time i get by just fine.

As for the theorectical fighters, well theorectically they cant loose to a grappler as they would always knock them out before they were taken down. But theorectically if the unthinkable should happen, theorectically their skills developed from their stand-up will work just as effectively on the ground to be able to either escape or win the fight...........theorectically !

Understandibly most of the persistent posters advocating grappling were indeed kung fu theorist before they got their ass whipped by grapplers and the outlet for their bruised ego manifests itself in an overwelming need to inform the WC community of their newly discovered enlightment !

Based on my own experience, I don't always find this to be true. A grapller may or may not win based on how good he is and or not. Just last Sunday I played with a western westler and i had no plomblem with him. He tried verything on me. KNow I can't judge at what level a westler he is but it all depends and many factors. WC has an answer to grapllers. Some of my si dai and si hing also westle again I have no problem with them althought some people do.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . . . .All systems must evolve, or fall bay the wayside.
I wish more people thought that way.
btw, I met Yngwie Malmsteen in a bar in New Haven, CT. We had a few beers and told me he was opening for Dio at the New Haven Coliseum. I ended up getting a back stage pass to the show plus he and the band autographed a 5 pound note for me. Of course I still have it. ;)

[hhe]

Methods of training and teaching can evolve. A system that reaches Maximum efficiency , a stage where nothing can be (+) or (-), does not need to evolve.

[Phil Redmond]

Methods of training and teaching can evolve. A system that reaches Maximum efficiency , a stage where nothing can be (+) or (-), does not need to evolve.
WC isn't a system (Pai). It's a 'Kuen'. And the only way to test maximum efficiency is by fighting. If you're not fighting against different types of fighters you'll never know what's effective.

[hhe]

"WC isn't a system (Pai). It's a 'Kuen'."

May be that is true for your WC , but not true for my. My system is a Pai. How effective you fight is not the same as the effectiveness of the art or system.

[Phil Redmond]

"WC isn't a system (Pai). It's a 'Kuen'."

May be that is true for your WC , but not true for my. My system is a Pai. How effective you fight is not the same as the effectiveness of the art or system.
Point taken. I should never speak in absolutes with regards to WC since I wasn't privy to what was going on in the minds of the developers of WC so I'll say that the term 'WC Kuen' is used by many WC lineages.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . . How effective you fight is not the same as the effectiveness of the art or system.
Have you personally tested what you do full out against stylists outside of your kwoon?
I still stand by the fact that you'll never know if you don't test what you do. There is no other way. Every fighter is aware of that fact.

[m1k3]

Methods of training and teaching can evolve. A system that reaches Maximum efficiency , a stage where nothing can be (+) or (-), does not need to evolve.

I disagree. This presupposes that you already know everything that could be added or subtracted from the system, have tested it and determined it no to be efficient.:confused:

I admit I am a skeptic but I truly find that hard to believe.

[chusauli]

Any system tends towards entropy.

[duende]

Any system tends towards entropy.

The nature of all things is to tend towards entrophy. The purpose of a "system" is to identify core concepts and determine what exactly makes the logic itself complete and self-sustaining.

ie... a Grundegestalt. Which can then provide a checks and balances towards this tendency.

In regards to the art of WC. A system can provide a definitive outline to refer to when needed for "tune-ups" and skill developement. Speed, power, conditioning are all absolutely necessary, but when they fail to provide reasonings as to why the fight was lost. Or why the technique failed, then the system can tell you what personal attributes need to be improved in order to overcome these defficiencies.

[hhe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhe
Methods of training and teaching can evolve. A system that reaches Maximum efficiency , a stage where nothing can be (+) or (-), does not need to evolve.



from m1k3
I disagree. This presupposes that you already know everything that could be added or subtracted from the system, have tested it and determined it no to be efficient.

I admit I am a skeptic but I truly find that hard to believe.


chusauli and m1k3,

If you have not experience it, it is over your head.

[chusauli]

I humbly and respecfully ask you to enlighten me.

[hhe]

You can not experience Kung Fu on the net.

[couch]

You can not experience Kung Fu on the net.

...and you have no idea who you're talking to on these forums. :rolleyes:

[couch]

"WC isn't a system (Pai). It's a 'Kuen'."

May be that is true for your WC , but not true for my. My system is a Pai. How effective you fight is not the same as the effectiveness of the art or system.

Let's rephrase what you wrote in my minds eye: "The effectiveness of the art or system is the same as how effective I am at fighting."

WC, no different than other combat arts, should turn people into fighting machines:
http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/terminator_004.jpg

[hhe]

Let's rephrase what you wrote in my minds eye: "The effectiveness of the art or system is the same as how effective I am at fighting."


The pilot is not the same as his fighter plane. I will put my $ on an experience pilot flying a less capable plane than an inexperience pilot flying more advance fighter plane.
Unless it is an F22 fighter (a system that is way ahead of everything else that is out there and changes the rules of combat), a plane that makes every pilot an ace.


.....and you have no idea who you're talking to on these forums.

Ignorance and ego appears in everyone

[Phil Redmond]

chusauli and m1k3,

If you have not experience it, it is over your head.
The "over your head" wasn't necessary. I'll try to be tactful so I'll only say that you could be making your comment to people who are 'experienced'. Oops, it turns out that you are. :)