Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun student Aaron Baum winning 10th Legion MMA title

[aaron baum]

Heres is some footage of my last MMA bout in April...fighting for the title.

Next show on 6th September, Hull, England.

Round 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49tbIUy5Qd0

Round 2 + 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gR3beL5CWo



My best

Aaron

[t_niehoff]

Congratulations on winning the title! Great fight.

[Yoshiyahu]

Excellent success proving Wing Chun...

[t_niehoff]

Excellent success proving Wing Chun...

That's a false generalization. Arguably it shows what can be achieved with good teaching/coaching from genuine fighters, training like a fighter (including cross-training and working with high level fighters), and solid fight experience. But since 99.9 % of WCK people don't have any of that, Aaron's success only proves that how most people "train" WCK is essentially worthless.

[Hendrik]

Congratulations!
Congratulations!
Congratulations!

[SergeTk]

I only watched the first round , but haven't seen any WC other then basic punches (which are general technique for most stand up styles)

There is a difference between training in a Style and USING A STYLE.............. that proved absolutely nothing ...................

Its like training in style only when sparing time comes around you go back into your shell and use absolutely nothing you've learned .............

Other then that it was a good fights .........

[Alan Orr]

I only watched the first round , but haven't seen any WC other then basic punches (which are general technique for most stand up styles)

There is a difference between training in a Style and USING A STYLE.............. that proved absolutely nothing ...................

Its like training in style only when sparing time comes around you go back into your shell and use absolutely nothing you've learned .............

Other then that it was a good fights .........


Well done Aaron, I am very proud of you and the guys.

The above comments show the really problem with the way wing chun people think and train.

Wing Chun is a boxing art. The chi sao and forms are the way you learn timing, angles, pressure control and so on. When you fight you punch and kick.

You don't see boxers looking for the speed ball in the ring. Its just training. In the ring you fight.

The skill is when too punch and kick. Not if you can see a 'training pak sao'

This is the point T is trying to get across, but it seems nobody listens.

Also if you have time to post then maybe it would be a good idea to watch the whole fight, otherwise any point of view is limited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lyEj3_Zo90

This is a clip of another one of my guys fighting on the same event.

We had 6 fights and 6 wins.

Aaron's fight is a excellent display of Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun and what can be done when you have structural control and real power from your stance.

My best

Alan

[duende]

I watched the vids this morning.

Saw good tracing, centerline control, and domination of the opponents COG.

If this ain't WC then what is.

Congrats.

[Eric_H]

Nice win, good work.

[AdrianK]

I only watched the first round , but haven't seen any WC other then basic punches (which are general technique for most stand up styles)

Then you only understand wing chun on a superficial level.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well done Aaron, I am very proud of you and the guys.

The above comments show the really problem with the way wing chun people think and train.

Wing Chun is a boxing art. The chi sao and forms are the way you learn timing, angles, pressure control and so on. When you fight you punch and kick.

You don't see boxers looking for the speed ball in the ring. Its just training. In the ring you fight.

The skill is when too punch and kick. Not if you can see a 'training pak sao'

This is the point T is trying to get across, but it seems nobody listens.

Also if you have time to post then maybe it would be a good idea to watch the whole fight, otherwise any point of view is limited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lyEj3_Zo90

This is a clip of another one of my guys fighting on the same event.

We had 6 fights and 6 wins.

Aaron's fight is a excellent display of Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun and what can be done when you have structural control and real power from your stance.

My best

Alan

I totally disagree Alan, I didn't see anything that looked like the movies there !
:p

[aaron baum]

cheers guys...it was a great night...sifus hard work ended in a great show

a friend made a good point...if your basic punching and kicking beats your man, then where is the problem with you basic punching and kicking your opponent into the floor? i want to play the percentages and do damage, no risks or as few as possible....if you cant manage that properly in a stressful situation then how do you expect to do anything else?

also what may seem to the less aware as 'basic' is not just 'simple'...basic is doing the bread and butter with skill...simple is simple...SLT is the basics of Wing Chun, but doing it properly is not a simple thing to do...two different things IMO

and having looked at the clip a 1000 times...LOL! i came to the conclusion that one section maybe showed the HARD and SOFT sides of wing chun, chi sau and chin na in real application...

5.10 - 5.20 shows the HARDER side (ie linked)...PUNCHING

5.20 - 5.35 shows the SOFT (delink)...SUBMISSION

ie punched and dominated with hard power, then when the times was right delinked, and redirected the head using our chi sau skill for the guillotine submission (CHIN NA)..the softer side...i didnt even realise i'd done those things until i watched it...the training came out without consciously thinking about what to do..now im not saying i didnt make mistakes because i sure did...and thats why i fight (apart from enjoying it)...to highlight things i do wrong and then try and correct them.

my best guys

aaron

[Muteki]

cheers guys...it was a great night...sifus hard work ended in a great show

a friend made a good point...if your basic punching and kicking beats your man, then where is the problem with you basic punching and kicking your opponent into the floor? i want to play the percentages and do damage, no risks or as few as possible....if you cant manage that properly in a stressful situation then how do you expect to do anything else?

also what may seem to the less aware as 'basic' is not just 'simple'...basic is doing the bread and butter with skill...simple is simple...SLT is the basics of Wing Chun, but doing it properly is not a simple thing to do...two different things IMO

and having looked at the clip a 1000 times...LOL! i came to the conclusion that one section maybe showed the HARD and SOFT sides of wing chun, chi sau and chin na in real application...

5.10 - 5.20 shows the HARDER side (ie linked)...PUNCHING

5.20 - 5.35 shows the SOFT (delink)...SUBMISSION

ie punched and dominated with hard power, then when the times was right delinked, and redirected the head using our chi sau skill for the guillotine submission (CHIN NA)..the softer side...i didnt even realise i'd done those things until i watched it...the training came out without consciously thinking about what to do..now im not saying i didnt make mistakes because i sure did...and thats why i fight (apart from enjoying it)...to highlight things i do wrong and then try and correct them.

my best guys

aaron

Good facing/controlling your opponent's centerline allowing equally opportunities from both of your hands to attack/defend.

[taojkd]

Congratulations!!! Winning a title fight like that takes a lot of hard work and dedication. Great job!

[Wayfaring]

a friend made a good point...if your basic punching and kicking beats your man, then where is the problem with you basic punching and kicking your opponent into the floor? i want to play the percentages and do damage, no risks or as few as possible....if you cant manage that properly in a stressful situation then how do you expect to do anything else?


From what I saw your control of centerline / opponent's center, and consistent forward pressure landing structured punches pretty much took away your opponent's will to fight. It looked to me like he was almost giving you the guillotine at the end, but maybe that's just me.

Good power from structured punches, good control of center, consistent forward pressure.

Yep - wing chun. Good fundamental wing chun in a MMA environment.

People looking for bong, tan, fuk hand formations are missing the point.

[Katsu Jin Ken]

CONGRATS!!!!!! great to see the chun represented in the cage. excellent

[martyg]

Aaron/Alan - congrats. Good to see your continued successes.

[chusauli]

Excellent fight - Aaron had the opponent closed off and shut him down with infighting. I am sure the opponent felt the power in Aaron's strikes.

Excellent job! Excellent event! Excellent ring girls!

[WarriorWC]

Well done!

[Pacman]

I watched the vids this morning.

Saw good tracing, centerline control, and domination of the opponents COG.

If this ain't WC then what is.

Congrats.


i guess ill do a butterfly kick to the centerline and call it wing chun

[AdrianK]

i guess ill do a butterfly kick to the centerline and call it wing chun

If the sum if Wing Chun is simply a series of exact, rehearsed movements, than Wing Chun is irrelevant to martial arts.

Wing Chun's series of concepts cover rooting, striking, controlling the arms, the centerline, footwork and sensitivity reflex, just to name a few.

Wing Chun is not, sit in yee gee kim yeung ma and do your rehearsed movements exactly as you were taught.

In fact, just to have a more in-depth discussion about what a martial art really is, the idea that an art forces you into a specific way of fighting is either a massive flaw conceptually of the art itself as it was taught, or a misinterpretation of martial arts in general.

Martial arts adds abilities to your natural way of fighting. It does not detract. That doesn't mean it doesn't teach you how to fix bad habits - Its like this, you can jab, cross, uppercut and still use the concepts of wing chun. Wing Chun does not say, you cannot jab, cross, uppercut, or hook. It does not say you must be 95% wing chun, or any such ridiculous percentage, in order to be using wing chun. It does not say, You MUST FIGHT A SPECIFIC WAY, martial arts is as this: These are tools. Use them when necessary. Apply them logically to enhance your abilities, whether they be BJJ, boxing, etc.

The idea that a style should limit someone in any way is counter to every legitimate artistic field.

[Alan Orr]

If the sum if Wing Chun is simply a series of exact, rehearsed movements, than Wing Chun is irrelevant to martial arts.

Wing Chun's series of concepts cover rooting, striking, controlling the arms, the centerline, footwork and sensitivity reflex, just to name a few.

Wing Chun is not, sit in yee gee kim yeung ma and do your rehearsed movements exactly as you were taught.

In fact, just to have a more in-depth discussion about what a martial art really is, the idea that an art forces you into a specific way of fighting is either a massive flaw conceptually of the art itself as it was taught, or a misinterpretation of martial arts in general.

Martial arts adds abilities to your natural way of fighting. It does not detract. That doesn't mean it doesn't teach you how to fix bad habits - Its like this, you can jab, cross, uppercut and still use the concepts of wing chun. Wing Chun does not say, you cannot jab, cross, uppercut, or hook. It does not say you must be 95% wing chun, or any such ridiculous percentage, in order to be using wing chun. It does not say, You MUST FIGHT A SPECIFIC WAY, martial arts is as this: These are tools. Use them when necessary. Apply them logically to enhance your abilities, whether they be BJJ, boxing, etc.

The idea that a style should limit someone in any way is counter to every legitimate artistic field.

Good post!

More people are starting to understand the difference between training and fighting. You train to fight. Then you fight. All the training is skill development.

Wing chun is a boxing art, we punch and kick. We use all the same punches just fist placement and vectors are different. Balance control and pressure are what we train to use.

best

Alan

[sanjuro_ronin]

Good post!

More people are starting to understand the difference between training and fighting. You train to fight. Then you fight. All the training is skill development.

Wing chun is a boxing art, we punch and kick. We use all the same punches just fist placement and vectors are different. Balance control and pressure are what we train to use.

best

Alan

A friend of mine once said:
" All I have ever done is WC, for the last 20 years, everyday, WC, when I fight, WTF else am I going to use???"

[Alan Orr]

A friend of mine once said:
" All I have ever done is WC, for the last 20 years, everyday, WC, when I fight, WTF else am I going to use???"

I like that one!

I also tell my guys if I headbutt you thats still my wing chun! lol

[Alan Orr]

Excellent fight - Aaron had the opponent closed off and shut him down with infighting. I am sure the opponent felt the power in Aaron's strikes.

Excellent job! Excellent event! Excellent ring girls!

Hi Sifu

Aaron done us proud, as did our other 5 guys!

Sep we will have more guys fighting.

best

Alan

[duende]

i guess ill do a butterfly kick to the centerline and call it wing chun

This is technique-based thinking. Fortunately, I've learned that WC is much much more.

[Pacman]

If the sum if Wing Chun is simply a series of exact, rehearsed movements, than Wing Chun is irrelevant to martial arts.


agreed and i am not saying that. wing chun is a set of physical movements and theory. two things. you can't have one without the other. true you could apply the theory to other arts or movements, but without both it is not wing chun

i totally agree and know that in a combat situation you will have to adjust for what is happening and chances are things will not look exactly as you planned.

however you should be able to see a WC fighter fight and tell what movement he was doing. you should be able to look and say "that was a good arrow step punch" or "hey that was a good white crane sweep" (these terms might not make sense if you are from a different lineage than me but you get the point).

im not in any way saying that aaron baum did a bad job. in fact he kicked butt.

this is of course my definition of what "using wing chun" entails and if you feel that both theory and physical movements are not needed to define a fighting style, then that is fine. we would just be discussing semantics then.

[Pacman]

This is technique-based thinking. Fortunately, I've learned that WC is much much more.

what is 'technique-based thinking' and what is WC to you?

[aaron baum]

hello guys

the major factor in the long discussion of what wc should look like in mma, from what ive learned from my experience, is this IMO...space...in the cage you have many factors that change how the fight looks...but two men ready, facing each other with a crowd watching, able to grapple...is a very different environment from two guys going at it face to face in bar...you have to deal with the clash from distance when you are pumped and ready to go..adrenalin and the subsequent dump can be no fun...

if you go here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDEPNCo8AbU

you can see me in a chi sau comp...looks different to my fight...but you can see the same body mechanics at close range...the thing is when someone is really trying to knock you out you switch to a slightly more basic animal mood and just try and cause damage until they are crushed...but the drills and sensitivity training at close range, gives you the confidence to be or try to be on the inside where you can shut him down...you need long range power as well, there are many boxers who will knock you clean out, believe me...

this is only what i have learnt but i'm still searching for answers...but i dont stress about these things...do your drills, spar, form, kbells, grapple, have fun, get punched, punch...

check this out from our training brother, leo negao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2RvGfHJ_XA

now that is the real deal..LOL..old school..the end is something else,watch it all

my best

[duende]

what is 'technique-based thinking' and what is WC to you?

Pacman,

I do not want to side-track this thread, so I'll try to be brief...

Technique-based thinking is the failure to see beyond techniques and forms. Take Tan Sau for instance... some only see the actual hand gesture/shape itself, and see that as what specifically designates a "tan". Anything outside these techniques is deemed not WC.

While others understand the physical expression of core body mechanics, concepts, and principles behind a Tan Sau.... Or what we call the "nature" of a Tan Sau.

Therefore by understanding this nature, one can then see how these tools relate themselves to one another and are part of an over-all system. (ie. WC)

With this awareness and ability to physically express the body mechanics, concepts and principles of a system, one can then use whatever tool outside of the system they choose. And to varying degrees, STILL be able to apply much of the same core body mechanics, concepts, and principles of WC. Despite whether or not the actual technique itself is traditionally taught as a "WC technique".

We refer to this as Inside-the-Box (ITB-WC tools and techniques) and Outside-the-box (OTB-MMA etc.. tools and techniques) (btw.. There's much more to ITB/OTB in our system, but that is a whole other thread)

The important factor to understand here is however. One does not merely trade WC for "MMA" tools, but instead molds and shapes OTB tools to fit into their own fighting strategy/physical expression of WC as needed and/or when the opportunity presents itself.

The guillotine at the end was obviously not a "WC technique" but as the opponent's structure and COG was already destroyed.. and the space/time clearly presented itself.

Then that was the best tool for the job. It would of been inefficient to loop and try and set up a so-called "traditional WC technique".


Best,

Alex

[aaron baum]

hi alex

have you thought of it in this way...you can look at the guillotine at the end as WC as well...right arm lan sau with the left hand in fook applying the pressure...pure wing chun chin na...its just other systems may call it something different

best

aaron

[duende]

hi alex

have you thought of it in this way...you can look at the guillotine at the end as WC as well...right arm lan sau with the left hand in fook applying the pressure...pure wing chun chin na...its just other systems may call it something different

best

aaron

Thanks for pointing that out Aaron, actually I totally agree... it was in fact a "WC technique" after all ha ha!

In hindsight, I guess it wasn't the best example to use for my post. :cool:

Or maybe it was.... ;)

[Pacman]

i fully agree with you on some of the points you made.

i completely agree that understanding the theory behind the movements is essential to execution and improvement.

some on this forum (mostly people who study 20 different fighting styles in 1- years and master none of them) will scoff at theory saying its useless. they love to put on some pads and gear and get into a ring with another guy and try to knock each other's heads off thinking they are learning.

i guess in the end we dont disagree too much. its just that you have a more liberal view of what OTB can still constitute wing chun. my butterfly kick example might have sounded silly, but from what i have read it seems you and some others would have no problem with me head butting someone's centerline, utilizing WC structure and calling it WC.

i would

congrats again, aaron.

Pacman,

I do not want to side-track this thread, so I'll try to be brief...

Technique-based thinking is the failure to see beyond techniques and forms. Take Tan Sau for instance... some only see the actual hand gesture/shape itself, and see that as what specifically designates a "tan". Anything outside these techniques is deemed not WC.

While others understand the physical expression of core body mechanics, concepts, and principles behind a Tan Sau.... Or what we call the "nature" of a Tan Sau.

Therefore by understanding this nature, one can then see how these tools relate themselves to one another and are part of an over-all system. (ie. WC)

With this awareness and ability to physically express the body mechanics, concepts and principles of a system, one can then use whatever tool outside of the system they choose. And to varying degrees, STILL be able to apply much of the same core body mechanics, concepts, and principles of WC. Despite whether or not the actual technique itself is traditionally taught as a "WC technique".

We refer to this as Inside-the-Box (ITB-WC tools and techniques) and Outside-the-box (OTB-MMA etc.. tools and techniques) (btw.. There's much more to ITB/OTB in our system, but that is a whole other thread)

The important factor to understand here is however. One does not merely trade WC for "MMA" tools, but instead molds and shapes OTB tools to fit into their own fighting strategy/physical expression of WC as needed and/or when the opportunity presents itself.

The guillotine at the end was obviously not a "WC technique" but as the opponent's structure and COG was already destroyed.. and the space/time clearly presented itself.

Then that was the best tool for the job. It would of been inefficient to loop and try and set up a so-called "traditional WC technique".


Best,

Alex

[Alan Orr]

It all comes down to what you think wing chun is and it is not.

I don't think wing chun is doing a bong lap in a fight. I think wing chun is about learning how to best use your body power and be able cause your opponent to not be able to use theirs. If I can keep an opponent off balance and trap
(control ) their movement, then I can strike at will.

Once you stop playing at chi sao and make it more real ie hit hard etc it then changes, as chi sai is only one part of wing chun development and can be trained in many ways. Also sparring is the same it can be light or hard it can be played or drilled. In the end when you fight it is the core of the skills that you use.

I watch Aaron and can see excellent wing chun skills. I am not looking for a tan sao punch. The movement of his weight control, the punch positions, the centre control, the cutting of angles, timing etc etc this is wing chun

SLT is training your understanding of movements that you use, its not the fight.

CK is training your turning power and more linking and delinking skills, its not the fight

How much you use will be down to the level of skill you really have. Most wing chun guys don't fight in comps as they know they would not do very well. Whatever reasons they give don't really matter. In the end what does matter is your personal believe in your system and training.

My guys believe and have tested it, they are happy with it and know what works and what does not. Thats the end game.

best

Alan

[Violent Designs]

First of all, congratulations to Aaron and the Iron Wolves/Mr. Orr's camp.

My question for Mr. Orr is this, based on reading what you wrote (note I am not a WCK player), and I agree that WCK is not just merely trying to maintain a rigid structure and doing specific techniques in a fight, but at what point does the WC start or finish? I guess maybe I should asking, does drilling WCK, in your case, improve the fighter or work on different areas of his game than drilling pure/general MMA style fighting? (I am hoping it does)

I think this may be asked better in a Chinese boxing type of sense. We see different styles represented in MMA, being a lot of Thai boxing (with clear to not clear traditional MT styles), Karate (Machida being the bext example), Boxing. These styles however do not really have the structure training, chi sao or the special training of Wing Chun.

What I am seeing is that this "WC" being used in practical environment, changes the look tremendously from say the form, playing chi sao, playing the structure? I will assume this is a simple necessity/reality of fighting, which is actually TRUE for all the styles I know, or have played with. Hung Kuen fighting, does not look like Hung Kuen forms. The bridging, techniques, and stances sometime look totally different, like . . . kickboxing! Or perhaps better, modified kickboxing. :D

I am confused somewhat, however. In WCK circles, people seem to hold WCK to a higher standard, of sorts. In that they want to see the "picture perfect" WCK in a real, hard, full-contact match/street/NHB, they want to see triangle stance, bong sao, sticky hand, trapping, and whatnot. But why so prevalent in WCK circles?

You do not see CLF guys bashing on each other, for "looking" like kickboxers or western boxers at times. Actually, even the SPM guys I have talked to do not hold them to the standard of "strict adherence to a pure/static structure" in the sense they HAVE to use certain techniques, positions, postures, and they CANNOT use others!

Sorry for such a long winded post, I am very very tired and cannot formulate my thoughts very well right now. But thanks for reading. :)

[Alan Orr]

First of all, congratulations to Aaron and the Iron Wolves/Mr. Orr's camp.

My question for Mr. Orr is this, based on reading what you wrote (note I am not a WCK player), and I agree that WCK is not just merely trying to maintain a rigid structure and doing specific techniques in a fight, but at what point does the WC start or finish? I guess maybe I should asking, does drilling WCK, in your case, improve the fighter or work on different areas of his game than drilling pure/general MMA style fighting? (I am hoping it does)

I think this may be asked better in a Chinese boxing type of sense. We see different styles represented in MMA, being a lot of Thai boxing (with clear to not clear traditional MT styles), Karate (Machida being the bext example), Boxing. These styles however do not really have the structure training, chi sao or the special training of Wing Chun.

What I am seeing is that this "WC" being used in practical environment, changes the look tremendously from say the form, playing chi sao, playing the structure? I will assume this is a simple necessity/reality of fighting, which is actually TRUE for all the styles I know, or have played with. Hung Kuen fighting, does not look like Hung Kuen forms. The bridging, techniques, and stances sometime look totally different, like . . . kickboxing! Or perhaps better, modified kickboxing. :D

I am confused somewhat, however. In WCK circles, people seem to hold WCK to a higher standard, of sorts. In that they want to see the "picture perfect" WCK in a real, hard, full-contact match/street/NHB, they want to see triangle stance, bong sao, sticky hand, trapping, and whatnot. But why so prevalent in WCK circles?

You do not see CLF guys bashing on each other, for "looking" like kickboxers or western boxers at times. Actually, even the SPM guys I have talked to do not hold them to the standard of "strict adherence to a pure/static structure" in the sense they HAVE to use certain techniques, positions, postures, and they CANNOT use others!

Sorry for such a long winded post, I am very very tired and cannot formulate my thoughts very well right now. But thanks for reading. :)

Thanks for your questions.

The answer is we have a lot of people in wing chun who are more interested in making up history or wearing the right colour silk uniform. This really goes back to teachers trying to market their wing chun as the 'best' or 'real' etc etc
Then saying we can't test it as you would be killed etc

We also have a lot of whun chun guys attached to what they where taught, but have never tested outside of the comfort zone they live in. These guys want to protect their view of the world, otherwise they may find out they could be wrong.

For me martial arts is all about learning and growing. Views change all the time.

What I like about the CSL Wing Chun system is it is based on body structure first, that from day one allows us to test, test and test again.

Now mma has pushed all types of martial arts to train towards more combat testing. Which has helped stop the crazy guys, well we still as you can see we still have a few! lol Anyway I don't think you have to always get in a ring or cage and test it, but we can learn a lot from the guys that do. In my school only 20% of the guys fight in comps. Saying that for Chi Sao comps we had 50% wanting to fight.

All the students learn from the feedback, even me! We can look at the skills under strong pressure and gain from it. That was how martial arts was developed back in the day anyway. Not via forums LOL.

My best

Alan

[Pacman]

respectfully i have to disagree

in a real fight, an MA fighter does not have to look exactly like he does practicing any of the forms. i certainly don't.

but look at machida. you can see that he has karate roots. or look at MT or boxers. they might not look exactly like they do when they train but you can see the origins.

look at this video from someone in my WC family:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYXUAiqAj8&feature=channel_page

they are practicing white crane takedowns. the black guy is just feeding punches (imitating someone he might meet on the street so not meant to be WC-like) on purpose. the white guy is practicing his white crane sweeps and takedowns.

the take downs don't look exactly like the way we practice it, but you can still tell they are white crane takedowns.

you don't see him pulling a double leg and saying "its actually just two bong saus" so its actually wing chun

i dont like it when people say "this is wing chun in a practical environment", as if everyone developed wing chun for excercise only.

if you cant utilize a bong sau or tan sau or sticky hands in general in a real environment its not because its by nature impractical, its because you are not abble to apply it.

[Alan Orr]

respectfully i have to disagree

in a real fight, an MA fighter does not have to look exactly like he does practicing any of the forms. i certainly don't.

but look at machida. you can see that he has karate roots. or look at MT or boxers. they might not look exactly like they do when they train but you can see the origins.

look at this video from someone in my WC family:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYXUAiqAj8&feature=channel_page

they are practicing white crane takedowns. the black guy is just feeding punches (imitating someone he might meet on the street so not meant to be WC-like) on purpose. the white guy is practicing his white crane sweeps and takedowns.

the take downs don't look exactly like the way we practice it, but you can still tell they are white crane takedowns.

you don't see him pulling a double leg and saying "its actually just two bong saus" so its actually wing chun

i dont like it when people say "this is wing chun in a practical environment", as if everyone developed wing chun for excercise only.

if you cant utilize a bong sau or tan sau or sticky hands in general in a real environment its not because its by nature impractical, its because you are not abble to apply it.


Not really sure what you are saying?

The point is not that whatever you do is wing chun because one says it is.

The point is that wing chun is not just tan, bong,fook as in the forms. These seem to be what a lot of people are looking for when watching a fight.

These movements are the reference of position, once you understand that you can control position because you know where you are in it. Thats the higher level of the martial arts. The start point is doing the basics until you don't need them as they are what you do as natural movement. You become the art.

best

Alan

[AdrianK]

there are quite a few submissions in wing chun too wiliams cheungs version has a standing head and arm choke and his knife defense he shows a sanding americana which i believe the gracies stole from him with their street self defense

The Gracies never stole anything from him.
And ground game/submissions in TWC? Honestly??? There are a few TWC instructors I've seen that embrace wrestling, bjj, etc., but other than that, there is none. Concepts are applicable on the ground, but using those alone makes for a very incomplete ground game.



I saw no WC in this fight.

LOL... another one. :|

[Alan Orr]

The Gracies never stole anything from him.
And ground game/submissions in TWC? Honestly??? There are a few TWC instructors I've seen that embrace wrestling, bjj, etc., but other than that, there is none. Concepts are applicable on the ground, but using those alone makes for a very incomplete ground game.




LOL... another one. :|


I agree.

LOL Submission fighting as been around from the dawn of time.

If you want to fight in MMA then you need a good stand up system ( CSL Wing Chun), you need strong wrestling and a good standard of BJJ.

BJJ is an excellent art and is always growing and changing. But its still BJJ.

All good martial arts address the basic control skills. In our Wing Chun we have a system of chin Na, but we also see the links to other movements and also know when you need to have pure Wrestling and BJJ skills ready to use. Which we have as well.

[Violent Designs]

BJJ is also a traditional martial art . . .

Thanks for your reply Sifu Orr.

[goju]

i didnt say ground fighting. submissioms are submissions wether they are standing or laying down and twc has them i noted two standing subissions that are in the arsenal that oddly are the exact same one the gracies teach

[Alan Orr]

BJJ is also a traditional martial art . . .

Thanks for your reply Sifu Orr.

You are very welcome.

Yes, you are quite right BJJ is also a TMA. Gi BJJ is a system which changes when in MMA. As does wing chun.

[chusauli]

Fighting is spontaneous in the moment. The system is just training you from a low level of ignorance to wisdom in combat. You do not fight according to system, but through the attributes you display and your personal style. Just as everyone learns to print, but later has their own signature.

Real fighting does not look like Chi Sao or prearranged San Sao or demonstrations, unless the opponent is way outclassed in ability.

Aaron had good structure, balance, timing, striking power, and took control of the opponent's balance. He applied the art as I taught it to Alan (and to Aaron directly during our numerous visits), and he also transitioned to ground grappling, which is where WCK ends. I am very proud of his and Alan's accomplishments.

I also urge our fellow WCK bretheren to step up to the plate and test their art. If Lyoto Machida is now light heavyweight champion of the UFC with Karate, what can WCK do? WCK people have the attitude they're all fighters, but we need to prove it.

[Violent Designs]

Sifu Chu/Orr, do you think Wing Chun has any principle that can be transferred to ground fighting/grappling?

There appears to be some that think so, while some say that WCK ends completely on the ground and there are no transferable concept or techniques.

Thanks

[chusauli]

There are attributes that are completely transferable to the ground like putting your weight on the opponent, lead his mind to thinking there is only one escape, using your structure to create openings, resting your mass on the opponent, posting/structure to nullify attempts to escape, controlling the opponent's balance and base, push the handles, pull the handles, X marks the spot, going with force, affect the opponent's breathing, letting things go, etc.

Obviously, these are not things like Pak Da, Lop Da, Tan Da in the beginning WCK sense. There is no textbook like the 3 sets or Jong. These are more intangibles - you develop them or not. Of course, you have to learn specifics of ground fighting like shrimping, body movement on ground, rolling, bridging, crawling, then take downs, ****zers, throws, joint locks, submissions, cranks, chokes, calf crush, toe holds, figure 4, nelsons, and positions of keeping mount, guard, half guard, north/south, back, side mount. It is a different world there!

Martial arts have strike, kick, throws, joint locks, ground fighting, and weaponry. It is everyone's duty to learn them all and make parts fit for you.

What needs to be done is some crosstraining to see where you can fit WCK in and develop your game. You give up your ego and humbly learn from the beginning. Learn the ground game rules first, then see where you can go.

[lkfmdc]

WCK people have the attitude they're all fighters, but we need to prove it.

sadly, the above applies equally to almost all the TCMA these days.....

[sanjuro_ronin]

People that fight are fighters, the rest are recreational MA at best.
Since I retired from competition I no longer view myself as a fighter because I am no longer fighting consistently.

[lkfmdc]

People that fight are fighters, the rest are recreational MA at best.
Since I retired from competition I no longer view myself as a fighter because I am no longer fighting consistently.

yet,

1) you don't act like an active fighter and whirl wind of death

and

2) when you talk about fighting, you DO have experience in it

[t_niehoff]

People that fight are fighters, the rest are recreational MA at best.
Since I retired from competition I no longer view myself as a fighter because I am no longer fighting consistently.

In my view, if you are training like a fighter, i.e, fighting as the core of your training, as they do in boxing or wrestling or BJJ or muay thai or etc., then you are a fighter. You are a swimmer if you get in the pool and swim. It doesn't matter if you are doing it competively or recreationally. If you stop training like a fighter, so that you are no longer fighting as the core of your training, then you stop being a fighter.

[sanjuro_ronin]

yet,

1) you don't act like an active fighter and whirl wind of death


Only when I am cutting up chicken wings !!


2) when you talk about fighting, you DO have experience in it

And yet well aware that its ancient history.
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

In my view, if you are training like a fighter, i.e, fighting as the core of your training, as they do in boxing or wrestling or BJJ or muay thai or etc., then you are a fighter. You are a swimmer if you get in the pool and swim. It doesn't matter if you are doing it competively or recreationally. If you stop training like a fighter, so that you are no longer fighting as the core of your training, then you stop being a fighter.

A valid point, but I am well aware of the "loss" of that "fighters/killers instinct" that made me competitive.
Not a bad thing mind you, in many ways my MA has progressed because of it.

[lkfmdc]

The real "problem", and I think those who have done it in any form and those who have been around it in any form already know this, is that if you have been exposed to real fighting, you have different attitudes and understand certain truths.

The guys sitting three rows back (or worse yet behind a keyboard), talking about how they'd do it better, how it isn't "XYZ style", asking why the "secret death touch" wasn't used, etc etc They are, by choice or by design, disconnected from reality....

I have guys in my school will NEVER "fight", but they understand what it is and IS NOT about. They've worked with fighters, they've seen fighting, they've experienced a taste of it by sparring in the gym... They don't live in ivory towers and they don't think they are "deadly"

[sanjuro_ronin]

The real "problem", and I think those who have done it in any form and those who have been around it in any form already know this, is that if you have been exposed to real fighting, you have different attitudes and understand certain truths.

The guys sitting three rows back (or worse yet behind a keyboard), talking about how they'd do it better, how it isn't "XYZ style", asking why the "secret death touch" wasn't used, etc etc They are, by choice or by design, disconnected from reality....

I have guys in my school will NEVER "fight", but they understand what it is and IS NOT about. They've worked with fighters, they've seen fighting, they've experienced a taste of it by sparring in the gym... They don't live in ivory towers and they don't think they are "deadly"

Reality never hurt anyone, well...not that much anyways, LOL !
However, fantasy land can get you seriously hurt.

[t_niehoff]

The real "problem", and I think those who have done it in any form and those who have been around it in any form already know this, is that if you have been exposed to real fighting, you have different attitudes and understand certain truths.

The guys sitting three rows back (or worse yet behind a keyboard), talking about how they'd do it better, how it isn't "XYZ style", asking why the "secret death touch" wasn't used, etc etc They are, by choice or by design, disconnected from reality....

I have guys in my school will NEVER "fight", but they understand what it is and IS NOT about. They've worked with fighters, they've seen fighting, they've experienced a taste of it by sparring in the gym... They don't live in ivory towers and they don't think they are "deadly"

All very true.

I think fantasy often tends to attract people who are already "disconnected from reality", and the TCMAs are over-flowing with elements of fantasy. Also, the way TCMAs are mainly "taught" tend to brainwash people into accepting those fantasy elements.

Being around reality (genuine fighters and seeing genuine fights) counteracts the fantasy.

[Wayfaring]

I have guys in my school will NEVER "fight", but they understand what it is and IS NOT about. They've worked with fighters, they've seen fighting, they've experienced a taste of it by sparring in the gym... They don't live in ivory towers and they don't think they are "deadly"

that's a good environment for TMA schools to be exposed to and it counteracts the fantasy element.

[lkfmdc]

I tell my students this quite frequently (did it again this morning)

My own teacher never challenged anyone's perceptions or biases. He simply figured out what you were looking for/what you were expecting and FED THAT NEED. If you came looking for fancy forms and fancy techniques, he'd give you that. If you wanted to learn how to fight, he could (and did) teach that also. But he never tried to change anyone's perceptions or challenge what they believed. A lot of TCMA teachers seem like this in my experience

I, on the other hand, and this will NOT surprise anyone who has been on this board more than a month, ALWAYS challenge perceptions and biases. Even the good ones. You have to THINK. You have to examine and second guess (triple guess even) everything you THINK you know, because maybe you don't know it at all. Evry idea or theory has to be put to the test, and often MANY TIMES.

It isn't always easy, or profitable, but it goes hand in hand with progressing as both a fighter and individual

[t_niehoff]

I tell my students this quite frequently (did it again this morning)

My own teacher never challenged anyone's perceptions or biases. He simply figured out what you were looking for/what you were expecting and FED THAT NEED. If you came looking for fancy forms and fancy techniques, he'd give you that. If you wanted to learn how to fight, he could (and did) teach that also. But he never tried to change anyone's perceptions or challenge what they believed. A lot of TCMA teachers seem like this in my experience


I think this attitude is cultural -- and very pragmatic from a business POV: give the customer what he wants.



I, on the other hand, and this will NOT surprise anyone who has been on this board more than a month, ALWAYS challenge perceptions and biases. Even the good ones. You have to THINK. You have to examine and second guess (triple guess even) everything you THINK you know, because maybe you don't know it at all. Evry idea or theory has to be put to the test, and often MANY TIMES.

It isn't always easy, or profitable, but it goes hand in hand with progressing as both a fighter and individual

I think this attitude is cultural as well.

If you do a bit of research into chinese pedagogy (teaching), you'll find that questioning things was frowned upon, and students were viewed essentially as sponges. Critical thinking (which involves the attitude of questioning everything) is western. As we've learned, certain attitudes are better for different things. And in the case of learning, critical thinking and having a questioning attitude, is much more productive (and explains why chinese pedagogy is considered very poor and has been dropped).

[sanjuro_ronin]

I tell my students this quite frequently (did it again this morning)

My own teacher never challenged anyone's perceptions or biases. He simply figured out what you were looking for/what you were expecting and FED THAT NEED. If you came looking for fancy forms and fancy techniques, he'd give you that. If you wanted to learn how to fight, he could (and did) teach that also. But he never tried to change anyone's perceptions or challenge what they believed. A lot of TCMA teachers seem like this in my experience

I, on the other hand, and this will NOT surprise anyone who has been on this board more than a month, ALWAYS challenge perceptions and biases. Even the good ones. You have to THINK. You have to examine and second guess (triple guess even) everything you THINK you know, because maybe you don't know it at all. Evry idea or theory has to be put to the test, and often MANY TIMES.

It isn't always easy, or profitable, but it goes hand in hand with progressing as both a fighter and individual

Most of the MA teachers I have had have fallen into that category of GM Chan, except the sport combat ones of course.

[aaron baum]

"Every idea or theory has to be put to the test, and often MANY TIMES."

You forge you sword in the fire to make it really strong. A great analogy i was taught. Time after time, to make it stronger and stronger. You can have a beautiful ornamental sword which in itself is a work of art, but it is different yet the same to look at, to one made to truly kill. By the way i know very little about sword construction to comment on technical matters..LOL

[Alan Orr]

"Every idea or theory has to be put to the test, and often MANY TIMES."

You forge you sword in the fire to make it really strong. A great analogy i was taught. Time after time, to make it stronger and stronger. You can have a beautiful ornamental sword which in itself is a work of art, but it is different yet the same to look at, to one made to truly kill. By the way i know very little about sword construction to comment on technical matters..LOL


That is a very good point, that many miss!