A thread for the more liberal wing chunners

[SavvySavage]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

[m1k3]

It won't be MMA unless you (the school) are competing. MMA is a set of rules, not a style.

As for the rest, I believe you can mix and match as suits your needs. Who cares what you call it. Maybe Jeet Kune Do? That has a nice ring. :D

[duende]

If one only looks for techniques in our forms, then your gonna end up with a very narrow understanding and miss out on some VERY important WC knowledge.

If however, one just takes a look at logic flow of the body mechanics in our forms... and understands of how they relate to leverage and dealing with oncoming energy at the various ranges of combat...

Then, you have an open door and can use whatever tools you like to fish.


It's all there imo.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

***CONGRATULATIONS, SavvySavage...

You've picked up on something I've thought about a bunch of times, and you came up with an excellent thread title to express it!

You're exactly right when you say that there's no point in practicing all the wing chun hand motions if we're not going to use them - because "wing chun is about principles, not about techniques" (as the argument usually goes).

It's a "concept-based" art, so if I see a guillotine in some bil jee, hell, it's a guillotine - because the "concept" of the motion is in the form.

So does that mean wing chun can become whatever we want it to be? Yes, Savvy - that's a real good question.

AND A GREAT MARKETING STRATEGY FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ANSWER: "YES".

Nothing sells better than a new name (and package) for an old product or a new product under an old name.

And quite often the "new" product is really an amalgam of an already-existing (completely different) product with some of the old (ie.- wing chun) - but without crediting (naming) the foreign substance that's been added to the old product.

And then some people might tell you that you really can't fight while using pak, lop, bong, garn, tan, bil, jut, etc.

Some others (like myself) will tell you that you can use such moves (dare I say "techniques")...but in a new way because they're attached to a new delivery system (ie.- some boxing). But I'm calling it what it is: boxing & wing chun - working together.

Is wing chun losing its identity, you ask? Good question.

And here's another one: For how long can a martial art remain exactly as it was before it becomes irrelevant - since the rest of the world has caught up to it and perhaps even surpassed much of it?

[m1k3]

Victor, good post.

[Knifefighter]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

Here's a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?

[SAAMAG]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

It's not so much that it can be "anything"; it's that your wck shouldn't be bounded by dogma. Remember the old "master the system don't let it master you" adage?

The idea that the system is principle based can also be descibed as simply learning to deal with energy and motion. That's all there really is in a fight. The shapes of the movements aren't new or exclusive by any means--just more identified and focused on by wing chun folks. A huen sao to tan sao can just as easily be threading for an underhook. A low lan sao is no different than an MMA fighter blocking knees with his forearm (instinctively). A seung kiu sao motion is almost reflexive in nature when someone is startled...the same could be said for wu / bong. It's just energy and motion. Hand shapes are one element, but what's more important is the energy contained within them. Is there structural support? Is there skill in the movement or wasted effort? Is it consistently reliable? Etc.

The saam bai fut movement at the end of biu gee is energy and motion. While I personally wouldn't take from it a guillotine, the movement itself (much like the huen / tan being likened to threading for an underhook) is still just E & M. So the fact that someone can extrapolate that sort of movement from wing chun just shows a different level of innovation for an art that will soon become extinct if it doesn't evolve with time.

In the business world there's a saying "If you're not moving forward--your moving backward". There is no "present" where you can just stagnate or rest on your laurels. The same goes for martial arts. If you're so satisfied with your system that you think it needs no further development, then you've condemned it and yourself to falling behind those that are looking to evolve. The same can be said about the skills within the system itself--however we're talking more broadly here.

WCK will always have it's tan sao, bong sao, fook sao--but those shouldn't be treated as endings but moreso transitions of movement while dealing with energy.

Anyway that's my take on it. Peace out yo!

[dirtyrat]

Here's a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?

Now's that a great question...

[SAAMAG]

Here's a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?

A even BETTER question would be "Why do you feel such a need to hang out on a wing chun forum and berate the others when you don't have an affinity for the system or respect for its practicioners?" ;)

See: Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder

[mun hung]

***CONGRATULATIONS, SavvySavage...

You've picked up on something I've thought about a bunch of times, and you came up with an excellent thread title to express it!

You're exactly right when you say that there's no point in practicing all the wing chun hand motions if we're not going to use them - because "wing chun is about principles, not about techniques" (as the argument usually goes).

It's a "concept-based" art, so if I see a guillotine in some bil jee, hell, it's a guillotine - because the "concept" of the motion is in the form.

So does that mean wing chun can become whatever we want it to be? Yes, Savvy - that's a real good question.

And then some people might tell you that you really can't fight while using pak, lop, bong, garn, tan, bil, jut, etc.

Some others (like myself) will tell you that you can use such moves (dare I say "techniques")...but in a new way because they're attached to a new delivery system (ie.- some boxing). But I'm calling it what it is: boxing & wing chun - working together.

Okay, I'm gonna throw this out there. Wing Chun does not need to modify itself for these types of ranges. The very same hands mentioned can be used in a variety of ways outside the short bridge. It is up to the practitioner to learn the long bridge applications for these very same hands. Problem is - everyone knows the short bridge and think that it fits every fighting situation. What people fail to aknowledge is - you gotta get there first. It doesn't make sense to incorporate boxing into Wing Chun when we clearly have the tools and applications for the job. The applications exist and they are beyond any guesswork.

[Pacman]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

what do you mean by stylized hand motions? you mean bong sau, tan sau etc?

why do you not use them?

[LoneTiger108]

If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

IMO Yes, it is still Wing Chun. Maybe just a glimpse in the flash of an eye, but it's there. Not only in MMA either, it's everywhere.


Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

This helps explain the first answer ;)

Expressing a glimpse of a stylized art (like Wing Chun) within your own personal character of movement whilst fighting proves that your WC training is in you. But what if you don't know you're doing it? Compare that with someone who consciously puts it in there and uses it. And if you stick to our basic principles too, and project our forms into combat expect what you see in a MMA ring change! For the better or worse? Now, that's a question.

As for this guillotine and saam bai fut in 'Biu Jee' goes, I couldn't even comment! :confused:

[punchdrunk]

I like Vankuen's response, it's a good way to view or approach most of the movements in the forms.
Styles are not really fighting methods.. they are training methods. How you fight is dependant more on who your opponent is, what he's doing and what the environment is. Fighting methods come down more to strategy and tactics, that is why 2 people trained in the same style can fight so differently.
As for Wing Chun's training methods.. obviously I like them, but there is definately lots of room for improvement, innovation and outright theft of other methods.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Okay, I'm gonna throw this out there. Wing Chun does not need to modify itself for these types of ranges. The very same hands mentioned can be used in a variety of ways outside the short bridge. It is up to the practitioner to learn the long bridge applications for these very same hands. Problem is - everyone knows the short bridge and think that it fits every fighting situation. What people fail to aknowledge is - you gotta get there first. It doesn't make sense to incorporate boxing into Wing Chun when we clearly have the tools and applications for the job. The applications exist and they are beyond any guesswork.

***NOTsaying that you can't use some of the moves I mentioned from long range.

I am saying that boxing attacks from longer ranges can get you to short range with a lot more ease than relying solely on wing chun - and it is at the shorter ranges where most of the moves I mentioned work at their best. Am also saying that boxing (and kickboxing) footwork, kicks, and especially boxing defenses can enhance the wing chun defensive game...

as in slips, ducks, bobbs and weaves, etc. Most wing chun defense is based on a bridge in order to parry, cut punch, deflect, and redirect - and not that much is based on pure avoidance. Boxing defenses on the other hand rely primarily upon avoidance - and this additional addition (no pun intended) to the wing chun small-amounts-of-avoidance-and-large-amount-of-bridging...defenses....would give the wing chun fighter more time to spend on offense.

From various ranges. And the best defense is always offense.

[Pacman]

***NOTsaying that you can't use some of the moves I mentioned from long range.

I am saying that boxing attacks from longer ranges can get you to short range with a lot more easy than relying solely on wing chun - and it is at the shorter ranges where most of the moves I mentioned work at their best. Am also saying that boxing (and kickboxing) footwork, kicks, and especially boxing defenses can enhance the wing chun defensive game...

as in slips, ducks, bobbs and weaves, etc. Most wing chun defense is based on a bridge in order to parry, cut punch, deflect, and redirect - and not that much is based on pure avoidance. Boxing defenses on the other hand rely primarily upon avoidance - and this additional addition (no pun intended) to the wing chun small-amounts-of-avoidance-and-large-amount-of-bridging...defenses....would give the wing chun fighter more time to spend on offense.

From various ranges. And the best defense is always offense.

the problem with purely bobbing and weaving is that it is pure defense. there is no offense. as a result, that is a wasted move/opportunity. WC seeks to always always attack and defend simultaneously.

however, if your WC has no way to move your body and only relies on the arms to deflect attacks, i can see why learning to bob and weave is necessary

[anerlich]

When I started grappling I used to look for applications of WC moves in the technique. For example, I personally think the gum/garn section in TWC SLT is more easily modified to be a guillotine than any part of bil jee.

However, practicing WC forms will never make you a better grappler.

I also feel I progressed more rapidly as a grappler when I stopped trying to see everything through WC-coloured glasses and just followed my grappling instructors' directions. I needed to empty my cup.

Opinions vary, but that's my take on it.

Wing Chun is something I do. I feel it is important to be able to make fine distinctions between it and different arts rather than just having them all mix into some beige goo. I wouldn't say it's part of my IDENTITY, though, that makes no sense to me.

[Lee Chiang Po]

***NOTsaying that you can't use some of the moves I mentioned from long range.

I am saying that boxing attacks from longer ranges can get you to short range with a lot more easy than relying solely on wing chun - and it is at the shorter ranges where most of the moves I mentioned work at their best. Am also saying that boxing (and kickboxing) footwork, kicks, and especially boxing defenses can enhance the wing chun defensive game...

as in slips, ducks, bobbs and weaves, etc. Most wing chun defense is based on a bridge in order to parry, cut punch, deflect, and redirect - and not that much is based on pure avoidance. Boxing defenses on the other hand rely primarily upon avoidance - and this additional addition (no pun intended) to the wing chun small-amounts-of-avoidance-and-large-amount-of-bridging...defenses....would give the wing chun fighter more time to spend on offense.

From various ranges. And the best defense is always offense.

Actually, the best defense is not always offense. One should never attack a defended fortification unless he has some sort of advantage. I have to wonder, if Boxing and wrestling has all you really need, why would you want to play around with Wing Chun? Obviously, it would degrade your kick boxing and make it less effective. Look at it realistically. Wing Chun practiced by it's principal concepts would not be the same if you did it like you was kick boxing. Or I would not really think it would be. It would only drag you down if you tried to keep it true to concept. It simply does not make sense to me that you would actually try to marry the two. You could switch between systems, but I seriously doubt mixing them would help you much.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Actually, the best defense is not always offense. One should never attack a defended fortification unless he has some sort of advantage. I have to wonder, if Boxing and wrestling has all you really need, why would you want to play around with Wing Chun? Obviously, it would degrade your kick boxing and make it less effective. Look at it realistically. Wing Chun practiced by it's principal concepts would not be the same if you did it like you was kick boxing. Or I would not really think it would be. It would only drag you down if you tried to keep it true to concept. It simply does not make sense to me that you would actually try to marry the two. You could switch between systems, but I seriously doubt mixing them would help you much.

***YOU attack a fortified location (ie.- a fighter with a good defensive posture) carefully - but you attack. You don't wait to play a counter-attack game...unless of course the lack of attacking weapons makes you wary?!

Never said that boxing and wrestling has "all I need" - although someone proficient in boxing and (submission) wrestling is indeed formidable.

And no, wing chun wouldn't degrade kickboxing because you use whatever weapon is appropriate to the time and place (range).

And TWC central line concepts can easily be applied and adapted to fit into a kickboxing (or a boxing) framework.

And the closer you get - then the emphasis on working the main centerline kicks in.

[YungChun]

***YOU attack a fortified location (ie.- a fighter with a good defensive posture) carefully - but you attack.


If I'm not mistaken.. No fortification has ever worked...long term.. Because fortifications are inherently limited and fixed.. It's just a matter of time before the pounding takes it's toll..

VT has already lost its identity and I cite this forum as proof..

Once again the old man would be laughing his azz off..

http://nagaputih.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/yip-man.jpeg

[Niersun]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

Static drills??? Not while i was training at GM Cheungs academy.

WC is not liberal. Its just so... basic and simple, people feel the urge to add clay to the statue. It is just too... simplistic for some people.

Who wants simplicity when there is much more appealing techniques from other MA's.

Even to this day, instead of learning a finger jab to the eye, people want to know the death touch, the secret of the one inch punch, etc, etc.

It is JKD. Why continue calling it, WC? Because WC is the foundation and its marketable.

[Ultimatewingchun]

the problem with purely bobbing and weaving is that it is pure defense. there is no offense. as a result, that is a wasted move/opportunity. WC seeks to always always attack and defend simultaneously.

however, if your WC has no way to move your body and only relies on the arms to deflect attacks, i can see why learning to bob and weave is necessary

***THINK CAREFULLY about this.

Good boxers often use bobbs and weaves as part of a one move the ending of which is a strike; the same thing with a duck. He throws a punch, you duck and return the fire on a different line from a different angle in one motion. Not wasted motion or energy at all; but rather, it becomes something that can easily be labelled (near) simultaneous attack & defense.

Does this strategy sound familiar?

And even in wing chun reality fighting, exactly simultaneous attack and defense is very rare. "Simultaneous" attack and defense is almost always hitting back on the half beat - and not on the exact first beat.

[k gledhill]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?


VT has varying levels of efficiency...find the most efficient and then train hard at it....the best way to judge isnt chi-sao. its sparring other VT. takes a few seconds.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Pacman
the problem with purely bobbing and weaving is that it is pure defense. there is no offense. as a result, that is a wasted move/opportunity. WC seeks to always always attack and defend simultaneously.

however, if your WC has no way to move your body and only relies on the arms to deflect attacks, i can see why learning to bob and weave is necessary

i am sorry but this is just wrong, the whole point of bobbing and weaving is to be able to counter almost immediatly, bobbing and weaving and hooking to the body or head govery well together , as does rhrowing the over hand as you move your head

oh and not getting hit and seeking a better attacking angle is not a wasted move

[goju]

randy williams has his "wing chun bob and weaving" and ive seen other wc styles do like a head slip as well

[t_niehoff]

I like Vankuen's response, it's a good way to view or approach most of the movements in the forms.
Styles are not really fighting methods.. they are training methods.


That doesn't make sense. You train to do something. What is that something?

WCK is an approach to fighting and a means of learning/training that approach.

It's the same with BJJ or boxing.



How you fight is dependant more on who your opponent is, what he's doing and what the environment is.


It is also dependent on your approach to fighting (the skills you have), and whether or not you can impose it on your opponent.



Fighting methods come down more to strategy and tactics, that is why 2 people trained in the same style can fight so differently.


You need physical skills (movement, techniques, actions, etc.) to implement strategy and tactics, and your ability to use your strategy and tactics depends on how good your physical skills are.



As for Wing Chun's training methods.. obviously I like them, but there is definately lots of room for improvement, innovation and outright theft of other methods.

Very true.

[t_niehoff]

***THINK CAREFULLY about this.

Good boxers often use bobbs and weaves as part of a one move the ending of which is a strike; the same thing with a duck. He throws a punch, you duck and return the fire on a different line from a different angle in one motion. Not wasted motion or energy at all; but rather, it becomes something that can easily be labelled (near) simultaneous attack & defense.

Does this strategy sound familiar?

And even in wing chun reality fighting, exactly simultaneous attack and defense is very rare. "Simultaneous" attack and defense is almost always hitting back on the half beat - and not on the exact first beat.

Please, don't try to tell us what GOOD boxers do when you've never trained with ANY good boxers or under any boxing trainers in your life.

[SavvySavage]

I beleive that wing chun people should spend more time on skill development and less time doing form, interpreting forms for techniques, and static close drilling.

If the move in bil gee is an incidental gillutine than practicing the form 100 times thinkng about the gillutine won't make one able to do it. Just because a form has the built in mechanics for endless technique variation doesn't mean that doing the form or that move will make you better at executing moves under pressure. The same goes with the overpractice of body structure drills. How can one be spontaneous in execution of techniques against live opponents if he just practices a form for years?

When sparring I almost have never seen bong sao pulled off as anything more than it's basic parry when someone was about to get clobbered or as an elbow strike(my interpretation). But isn't a bong sao an incidental arm lock? Can't bong be used to side step a double leg take down and strike the guy in the neck? Those are two liberal applicatjoke I just came up with all by myself. Mom is going to be so proud! I haven't tried them so I don't know if I could do them. Somewhere along the way wing chun(and other traditional chinese martial arts) became all about the ART of form interpretation and less about develoing real MARTIAL skills.

I've practced this drill for many of my wing chun years. A guy throws a round house sat me and I execute kwun sao(bong and tan) to deflect and then attack. In sparring In sparring I've seen people get attacked by a round house and not do anything resembling kwun sao. It looked more like he just put his hands down(sort of like gan sao) at the last second. A full powered kick would have clobbers his arm. While doing two person drill work the classc kwun sao against the round house works wondefully. It's almost orgasmic hoe good a newb can feel when pulling off that move in statc drilling(maybe I'm exhaggerating). But then he looks all frazzled during actual sparring and pulls off the putting the hands down knee-jerk reaction. "He" represents us all. So what's the point of drilling this stylized drill statically only to have it fall apart in 3D world? I thnk it's to hold onto the wing chun identity. "Look how different we are from the other guys! The nun did this against the monks and now i'm continuing that tradition.".

[t_niehoff]

I know you're all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations...but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting...is it still wck?


WTF does "principal based" mean? Tell me. Because I think the term itself is meaningless. It's one of those terms that sounds good, impresses the gullible, etc. but really means nothing when you examine it.

In my view, WCK - like all martial arts -- is skill-based. Skill-based. No matter what your idea, your concept, your strategy, your tactic, etc. you need to execute it, to PHYSICALLY DO some movement, action, technique, etc. It's not good enough to simply have some idea or principle in mind -- you need movement, technique, etc. to "express" it, right? Your ability to successfully physically do some task is a skill. Your ability to execute your idea or concept or principle is limited to the extent of your physical skill.

We get better at physical skills by practicing those physical skills. In other words, you start with a task, and a way of doing it (technique, movement, etc.) and practice it over and over.

WCK movement (the movement we learn and practice in the forms, drills, etc.) are the WCK concepts and principles IN ACTION. The movement and the principles/concepts are two sides of the same coin -- you can't have one without the other. So when you don't see WCK movement, you aren't seeing WCK principles.



Or is it mma? I don't mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

The WCK actions, movement, etc. aren't "stylized hand motions" but actions that perform specific tasks. To perform that task, you NEED that action. It's like throwing a ball. If you want to throw a ball, you need to move your arm/body in a certain specific way to perform that task.

[stonecrusher69]

Here's a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?

Because everyone wants to be Bruce Lee.

[omarthefish]

On attacking a fortress. . .

Yeah. It's kind of stupid.

But OTOH, so is being on the defensive.

You want to take the initiative. I'm not sure what good western strategy books are out there (I'm sure there's plenty) but the best one I've ever come across was NOT Sun Tzu's "Art of War" or Musashi's "Book of 5 Rings". The one that's given me the most food for thought, practical down to earth ideas, is "The 36 Strategies" which is sort of a companion book to "Art of War".

Sun Tzu says that of the 3 types of battles, attacking a fortification is the most costly and the dumbest. The key is to bring him out of his fortification. From the 36 that's called "diao hu li shan"/enticing a tiger to descend from the mountain. You need to bait the person to open up. Usually that means baiting them to attack in some predictable way.

My own Shifu actually teaches specifically not to keep your defense too closed up. Leave openings. Just be aware of them. The real openings are in your mind, ie. the places where you are not aware of the vulnerability. He says that if your defense is too tight (from an outside view anyways) then opponents get smart. They launch fakes and try to trick you into "descending from the mountain". When your stance seems open, people tend to attack in more predictable ways.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=YungChun;1010319]If I'm not mistaken.. No fortification has ever worked...long term.. Because fortifications are inherently limited and fixed.. It's just a matter of time before the pounding takes it's toll..

VT has already lost its identity and I cite this forum as proof..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong proof. This forum realistically is just a net xxxx chat place.

joy chaudhuri

[Pacman]

i am sorry but this is just wrong, the whole point of bobbing and weaving is to be able to counter almost immediatly, bobbing and weaving and hooking to the body or head govery well together , as does rhrowing the over hand as you move your head

oh and not getting hit and seeking a better attacking angle is not a wasted move

yes you can bob and weave and move and hit together, not saying it cant be done with bobbing and weaving, but how many times do you see people training (lets say the double ended bag) by only moving and no hitting. they throw a punch, bob an weave a few times and then throw some more punches.

or when they see an attack happen, they bob and weave a few times without hitting, and then maybe later they throw a punch

happens in fights too.

[Knifefighter]

yes you can bob and weave and move and hit together, not saying it cant be done with bobbing and weaving, but how many times do you see people training (lets say the double ended bag) by only moving and no hitting. they throw a punch, bob an weave a few times and then throw some more punches.

or when they see an attack happen, they bob and weave a few times without hitting, and then maybe later they throw a punch

happens in fights too.

Sure does... it's all part of the set up. Bob and weave and hit every time and the opponent is going to know what you are doing and will start using this to set you up.

[punchdrunk]

That doesn't make sense. You train to do something. What is that something?

+that actually varies from person to person, some just socialise, some compete, some self defense, some to make money etc.

WCK is an approach to fighting and a means of learning/training that approach.

It's the same with BJJ or boxing.

+most martial artists are not fighters.. and sparring and comps are NOT the same thing as fighting although they are valuable for training and testing. To learn to fight you have to fight at some point, because their is a myriad of variables in the real world that no training method can even get you to consider until you get hard earned experience.

It is also dependent on your approach to fighting (the skills you have), and whether or not you can impose it on your opponent.



You need physical skills (movement, techniques, actions, etc.) to implement strategy and tactics, and your ability to use your strategy and tactics depends on how good your physical skills are.

+physical skills are extremely important however there is a mental or psychological side as well... you can be a great physical specimen of a fighter and still walk into the stupidest ambush if you don't know enough to watch for it.

Very true.

+ I hate arguing definitions and semantics, seriously my point was that there is a lot more to "fighting" than is recognized in any curriculum. So to identify with a label such as Wing Chun or MMA or whatever becomes a trap if you worry about fitting the mould. Although it is annoying as hell when a search engine brings up tae kwan do when you search for kung fu!

[t_niehoff]

+ I hate arguing definitions and semantics,


Since we are trying to communicate our ideas to others in writing, and that isn't easy when the words mean different things to different people.



seriously my point was that there is a lot more to "fighting" than is recognized in any curriculum.


That's very true.

Another way to look at it is to say that the curriculum isn't the subject matter.



So to identify with a label such as Wing Chun or MMA or whatever becomes a trap if you worry about fitting the mould. Although it is annoying as hell when a search engine brings up tae kwan do when you search for kung fu!

The problem is that the various martial arts DO fit certain molds -- or, to be more precise, involve specific approaches with corresponding skill sets.

[YungChun]

Wrong proof. This forum realistically is just a net xxxx chat place.


Just a chat place, where there is a good representation of various VT people...

Beyond that, the NET has tons of evidence that corroborates the above..

How in the world can something have a clear identity when there is nothing but consistent disagreement about what it is, how to train it and how it is supposed to be used?

And this is exactly what the old man wanted IMO as is evidenced by his "teaching style"...

It's where a fighting style meets the "telephone game"... The best anyone can do is train it research it and work on applying the core...and find your own answers..which will not always be someone else's answers..

[Frost]

yes you can bob and weave and move and hit together, not saying it cant be done with bobbing and weaving, but how many times do you see people training (lets say the double ended bag) by only moving and no hitting. they throw a punch, bob an weave a few times and then throw some more punches.

or when they see an attack happen, they bob and weave a few times without hitting, and then maybe later they throw a punch

happens in fights too.

The reason you see people evading without countering is that attacking and defending simultaneously is **** hard to do against a good opponent
, it sounds great in theory and can be pulled off on occasion but honestly outside of classroom training and theoretical talk how many times do you see this pulled off in a fight?

Another reason you don't see it very often and you see boxers training bobbing and weaving both with and without simultaneous hitting is that they try not to set a rhythm or pattern the opponent can work off if you hit every time you bob and weave your opponent reads this and opens up on you, you have to keep him guessing
Oh and as I said not getting hit and creating a better angle on your opponent is not a wasted movement

[m1k3]

The best anyone can do is train it research it and work on applying the core...and find your own answers..which will not always be someone else's answers..

You have hit the nail on the head with this. Part of what I get reading this forum is a lot of people expect a single interpretation of Wing Chun and then get their knickers in a twist when what they see and what they read doesn't match their view of the art.

In boxing there are many different styles that are still boxing. Ali, Forman and Tyson look so different that using a strict interpretation that could be doing different arts. But you will never hear "that's not boxing" on a boxing forum.

The same goes for BJJ. Gi, no-gi, defensive, aggressive, bottom or top, even a rubber guard game. Lots of different interpretations on how to use BJJ and all are accepted. There may be arguments about which is best but not does it belong.

For some WC as an attached art work best for them. For some a very aggressive straight in style is the answer. To trap or not to trap? Counter punching (Jeet) as your prime method. All are Wing Chun and all can be good if trained in a resistive manner.

To a large degree your style will be based on how you were taught, how much your sifu allowed for innovation and experimentation and perhaps something deeper. Some people are drawn to a specifec interpretaion because is answers a deep seated instinct on the correct way to fight. When I boxed I was a counter puncher. I didn't start boxing with the intent of becoming a counter puncher but it just felt right at the time. The same with my BJJ. I have moved to no-gi because it feels right to me, I play very defensive because that is what works for my age and temperament, not because I was taught this is the only way to do BJJ.

I think the WC community has to open its eyes and start taking a big tent approach to what is WC.

[SavvySavage]

The basic consensus is that it's all personal style: one guy adds boxing, another guy like round punches, another guy focuses on being rooted and likes being attached, etc.



Do we even need to keep calling it wing chun? Why not just disband the name and just train? Most schools wouldn't have students if they didn't call themselves wing chun. People hear wing chun and then hear stories about the old man fightng, all these other guys fighting, then they watch mma on tv and never see the "wing chun guy.".

Is the form wing chun? Some say that form is just a source of knowledge and how you apple it's principles to different situations is the most important
thing. The modern translation of that seems to be: "Train wing chunish drills but train MOSTLY in other styles, and then call it all wing chun. And just to
prove it is wing chun link techniques to form movements.". Do we need to practice the old forms of wing chun? Why practice rooting in the form when I can do the same and better with a kettlebell and without having to memorize forms?

It seems like the only link we have to this so called wing chun identity is a bunch of forms that we practice but then do other stuff. Robert Downy Jr did tan da in a fight in the recent Sherlock Holmes movie. Does that mean he was fighting with wing chun throughout the whole movie or just in that sequence?

Enough questions. Here's my opinion. The move in bil gee is not an incidental gillutine. The move in bil gee is just a move you did in the air. I think people push teaching forms and these "special" wing chun drills just o have a different identity than everyone else. It's detrimental to teach hand motions that don't come naturally. Some are ok like fook sau or pak. Bong sau as a deflection? Nah. Probably better to use it as elbow strikes and just train those on a bag. I don't believe in analyzing forms for techniques. Just punch me and if I get hit I'll adjust what I did. Teaching these forms might improve concentration and or root but you never learn how to pull of a gillutine for real by drilling this mish mash of random moves.

If we want to compete in this new world of fighting that ACTUALLY works(ufc prves it every pay per view) we need to stop training just for the sake of trying to keep a wing chun identity.

What should we remove from training? I'll throw the first rock. We need to get rid of dan chi sao and long amounts of time in forms training.

What's next to be gotten rid of? Remember, I said gotten rid off, not added.

[YungChun]

I figure eventually some folks are going to end up actually applying VT in a serious way and very successfully in some open/NHB events...

If VT is worth its weight in salt as a fighting art then it has to eventually catch on.. All you need is some dedicated folks--dedicated to VT and dedicated to applying it in sport fighting...

As information continues to flow and training continues to improve I think we'll see more and more VT tactics and even VT proper taking its place in more top sport fighting venues..

I have already seen bits and parts here and there in NHB/MMA. You can't help see parts of VT because IMO VT's core is about what *simply* works and key universal fighting attributes; good fighters naturally express some of these things naturally.

The form VT will take as it settles into these venues IMO will reflect the most basic tenets of the art: 'outside the box' simplicity, directness, efficiency, economy use of the line, basic VT structure, etc..

Folks are going to keep getting smarter and reality has a way of setting in, even if it takes a while..

Time will tell..

You'll know VT when you see it, but if your not sure, then it isn't VT. :p

[t_niehoff]

I figure eventually some folks are going to end up actually applying VT in a serious way and very successfully in some open/NHB events...


Some people already have.



If VT is worth its weight in salt as a fighting art then it has to eventually catch on.. All you need is some dedicated folks--dedicated to VT and dedicated to applying it in sport fighting...


If you want to fight, then you have to train like all fighters train. If you don't train like a fighter, you won't develop any fighting skill.



As information continues to flow and training continues to improve I think we'll see more and more VT tactics and even VT proper taking its place in more top sport fighting venues..


No, you won't. Just the opposite is going to happen -- you are going to see fewer and fewer successful fighters coming from "styles" or "arts" (that's what happened in the past because everyone learned that way) and more and more coming from gyms that just train all-around fighters (as more MMA gyms become decentralized from styles).



I have already seen bits and parts here and there in NHB/MMA. You can't help see parts of VT because IMO VT's core is about what *simply* works and key universal fighting attributes; good fighters naturally express some of these things naturally.


I think it's rather a case of projection.

[SAAMAG]

If we want to compete in this new world of fighting that ACTUALLY works(ufc prves it every pay per view) we need to stop training just for the sake of trying to keep a wing chun identity.

What should we remove from training? I'll throw the first rock. We need to get rid of dan chi sao and long amounts of time in forms training.

What's next to be gotten rid of? Remember, I said gotten rid off, not added.

OH OH I'll go next!!!

ANY prearranged response to an attack that has more than 1-2 moves in it. I can't stand those "if he does this then you do this, then he will do this and you do this-this-and this". Yea....whatever.

I always have conversations with peers about these drills. The guy says we do this, then you do this, and blah blah. I say--"well I'd just hit you in one beat by using a cutting punch instead of fuch around for 3 beats and then hit."

[YungChun]

If you want to fight, then you have to train like all fighters train. If you don't train like a fighter, you won't develop any fighting skill.

Hmmm.. So you're saying that you have to fight? Could you elaborate on this?



No, you won't. Just the opposite is going to happen -- you are going to see fewer and fewer successful fighters coming from "styles" or "arts"

So you're saying that we will not see VT continue to take it's place along side other arts..in NHB/MMA while you also claim that it has begun to already..

Time will tell.

[YungChun]

What should we remove from training? I'll throw the first rock. We need to get rid of dan chi sao

Take out DanChiSao and you might as well take out all the forms/drills and ChiSao as well.. Then go pull out a phone book and start looking for another art to disembowel.

Using the core curriculum as it was intended to build attributes and cultivate VT tactics, with lots of energy and release of power would be a better option..


OH OH I'll go next!!!

ANY prearranged response to an attack that has more than 1-2 moves in it. I can't stand those "if he does this then you do this, then he will do this and you do this-this-and this". Yea....whatever.

I always have conversations with peers about these drills. The guy says we do this, then you do this, and blah blah. I say--"well I'd just hit you in one beat by using a cutting punch instead of fuch around for 3 beats and then hit."
I've never heard of such training in VT..

VT does not have "prearranged moves"..

[SavvySavage]

Yung chun,
you mentioned that fighters will eventually be doing wing chun in mma but in what form? Are they going to be doing pak sau and lap da...or are they going to be using the liberal wing chun(use whatver they want and then just call it wing chun)? Which is the real wing chun?

T_niehoff,

when you said that people are already using wing chun in mma were you referring to Alan Orr? I do not know Alan and I'm sure he's talented but why do you call what he does wing chun? It doesn't look any different than what every other mma guy is doing in the octagon. Just because Alan calls it CSL wing chun that doesn't make it wing chun... Or does it? Alan might as well have never studied wing chun because he is basically doing the same as every other mma guy. The fact that he's been successful is due to him and not his style. GSP is successful but he doesn't claim wing chun. I feel like if I won fights in the octagon, claimed to be MAINLY studying wing chun, you would say that I'm doing wing chun too. Even if all my fights were rolling around on the ground you'd be like, "Savvysavage is clearly using wing chun.". But only cause I'm winning. I'm not attacking you. It just seems like you're front running a bit. If Alan was getting beaten to pulp every match would you still have say he was using wing chun?


We need to define wing chun because we've lost our identity. Or maybe others have been right all along. Wing chun(and all chinese martial arts) are just glorified kickboxing. Maybe we should stop holding on to the label wing chun because the way some of you describe it is too liberal.

The labels and forms are bs. Fuk tan sau. Fuk the wooden dummy form. If you all say that wing chun needs those...but them you train bjj and win with that then you might as well stop practicing the forms, chi sao, etc.

[SAAMAG]

Take out DanChiSao and you might as well take out all the forms/drills and ChiSao as well.. Then go pull out a phone book and start looking for another art to disembowel.

Using the core curriculum as it was intended to build attributes and cultivate VT tactics, with lots of energy and release of power would be a better option..


I've never heard of such training in VT..

VT does not have "prearranged moves"..

Trust me, there are plenty of places that do it. These are the "core" drills that are meant to instill natural reaction through repititve motion. Sort of like a boxer practicing a right cross and then drop. But some chunners take it to the extent where there's too many moves involved. Even a porearranged drill should be a piece of the pie, and shouldn't be more than a couple moves at best. After prerranged exercises are proficiently done...time to move on to spontaneous sparring drills and sparring sessions.

[SavvySavage]

Wck people should get rid o drills that involve the old "if he moves that way you do this.". IMO those scenarios are not realistic. Good one, vankuen.

Terrence,
I asked a question of you in the last post of page 3. Please respnd when you get a moment. Thanks