Best Wing Chun KO in MMA - Iron Wolves Fighter Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun

[BPWT..]

How many times do you want me to say we have different expressions in the application of our systems?

Sorry, I just wanted to be absolutely clear. I understand this to mean that you can't explain what you see in that light sparring clip because your WSLVT doesn't do it that way either, and presumably you too can't see how this would have come from YKS, Hawkins Cheung and Gulao Wing Chun (as no one else from those Wing Chun families seems to have those different methods).

[BPWT..]

What sort of explanation would satisfy you? Apparently not something that sounds like CSL Wing Chun...

Well, firstly... I would like to understand how those things fit into their system. Plain and simple. Why would they cover and take hits to the hands/gloves? Why would they lean forward with their head down in this way? Why would they lunge forward and strike, with weight forward and often have body going one way and the strike the other? How does that fit into their system? (I ask as I have seen nothing like this from any other Wing Chun lineage)

Secondly, if they can explain why they do it (even though Alan shows very different and contradictory things in his other videos - as KPM just referenced), can they explain where this comes from: Yuen Kay San, Hawkins Cheung or the Gulao Wing Chun lineage?

Saying "it comes from CSL Wing Chun" is not very informative, as CSL Wing Chun came from Robert Chu who studied the YKS, HC and Gulao methods.

This would be a great start to being clearer.

[tc101]

I don't believe any further explanation is necessary. Clips explaining the rationale behind the reeling punch and the way we see bridging have been supplied. My teacher has explained the logic behind how our wing chun works. The offer for hands on explanation has been made and you have been invited to post a clip of your method in application to show us how we should be using/expressing the art under pressure, which you declined to do. You seem to have a problem with our expression of the art because it doesn't fit your paradigm and no amount of forum tennis is going to change that.

That is exactly right.

I go on an Easter holiday and come back to see this still going on.

Part of the problem here is some people think there is only one right way which of course is their way to use wing chun and if you are not doing things like that you are violating principles are not doing wing chun. These people often confuse the training with application.

Another part of the problem is most people in wing chun do not look at wing chun as a skill. It's what you can do not how you think things should be that matters. Many people look at it backwards that wing chun is in the concepts. The important thing is can YOU let me stress this YOU YOU YOU YOU make what you do work and at what level YOU can make it work that matters not how you think things should work or what your ideas are. Your so called understanding and knowledge doesn't mean anything if you cannot put it to work. The Orr team makes what they do work and at a level very very few in wing chun can equal.

What many of the comments are basically come down to I do not box but think I understand boxing and do not think how you box is right since it does't match my understanding. Their argument is well I may not be able to last 20 seconds sparring with you but you are doing it wrong and let me correct you.

[LFJ]

Sorry, I just wanted to be absolutely clear. I understand this to mean that you can't explain what you see in that light sparring clip because your WSLVT doesn't do it that way either,

I don't think we should try explain each other's systems based on our own. The CSLWC guys have been explaining theirs in multiple ways. So I have no place or reason to try to explain it to you.


and presumably you too can't see how this would have come from YKS, Hawkins Cheung and Gulao Wing Chun (as no one else from those Wing Chun families seems to have those different methods).

I haven't studied those styles.

[BPWT..]

The Orr team makes what they do work and at a level very very few in wing chun can equal.

No one disputes that. Alan's guys win fights. We all congratulated the fighter for his win.

The question is not 'are they good?', the question is 'what do they use?'

Their art comes from Robert Chu, who studied Yuen Kay San, Hawkins Cheung and Gulao Wing Chun. I am asking how their methods come from those lines - because the clip of Alan's fighters doing light sparring was... well... see the last few pages.

[BPWT..]

I don't think we should try explain each other's systems based on our own. The CSLWC guys have been explaining theirs in multiple ways. So I have no place or reason to try to explain it to you.

I haven't studied those styles.

You, sir, are a diplomat. :)

[tc101]

Well, firstly... I would like to understand how those things fit into their system. Plain and simple. Why would they cover and take hits to the hands/gloves? Why would they lean forward with their head down in this way? Why would they lunge forward and strike, with weight forward and often have body going one way and the strike the other? How does that fit into their system? (I ask as I have seen nothing like this from any other Wing Chun lineage)


Let me turn it around why not do those things? Why is that not wing chun?



Secondly, if they can explain why they do it (even though Alan shows very different and contradictory things in his other videos - as KPM just referenced), can they explain where this comes from: Yuen Kay San, Hawkins Cheung or the Gulao Wing Chun lineage?


Wing chun like boxing has lots of contradictions in what and how things are taught. There are a number of reasons for this. Part of the reason relates to the level being taught. As a beginner you may be told one thing or taught to do things one way and this may change as you get better. Another is context. Another is there is often more than one way to do things.

Training is not application. What most people call application is not application. Application is actually sparring or fighting.



Saying "it comes from CSL Wing Chun" is not very informative, as CSL Wing Chun came from Robert Chu who studied the YKS, HC and Gulao methods.

This would be a great start to being clearer.

I heard Andreas Hoffman once asked at a seminar he was teaching where a move he just performed was in the form and he said it's not in the form it's application.

[tc101]

No one disputes that. Alan's guys win fights. We all congratulated the fighter for his win.

The question is not 'are they good?', the question is 'what do they use?'

Their art comes from Robert Chu, who studied Yuen Kay San, Hawkins Cheung and Gulao Wing Chun. I am asking how their methods come from those lines - because the clip of Alan's fighters doing light sparring was... well... see the last few pages.

No that's not the question. They train wing chun as their stand up so they use wing chun.

No the art does not come from Chu. Chu did not create wing chun. He like YKS and H Cheung and Yip organized his teaching of wing chun but it is all wing chun. The training is not the art.

[LFJ]

CSL Wing Chun came from Robert Chu who studied the YKS, HC and Gulao methods.

Do we have any live sparring or fighting clips from these 3 that we can compare to CSLWC?

[BPWT..]

No that's not the question.

It very much is.


They train wing chun as their stand up so they use wing chun.

The point is that much of what they do seems to go against most of the Wing Chun we are familiar with - which is why we ask for some details to try and understand it. Ducking and Weaving is found in other MAs, but I haven't seen it taught in Wing Chun before. Doesn't mean it is bad, just means I want to know where in their WCK background this came from, or did they add it in.


No the art does not come from Chu. Chu did not create wing chun. He like YKS and H Cheung and Yip organized his teaching of wing chun but it is all wing chun.

CSL Wing Chun is Robert Chu's system - a system, if I am not making a mistake, he teaches based on what he has learned from studying with the people we've just mentioned.


The training is not the art.

Ironically.... :D

To be honest, tc101, I'd be happy to debate all this stuff with you - but I'd rather first hear from Chris to see if he's willing to give some more info about what we've asked.

[BPWT..]

Do we have any live sparring or fighting clips from these 3 that we can compare to CSLWC?

I'd be happy to just see a picture of someone from one of these lines ducking punches, and punching with their chin tucked and their head down as they lunge forward, etc.

Even a picture would be enough for me to admit that maybe they are right and I am wrong.

[LFJ]

I'd be happy to just see a picture of someone from one of these lines ducking punches, and punching with their chin tucked and their head down as they lunge forward, etc.

Even a picture would be enough for me to admit that maybe they are right and I am wrong.

Well, I'd say if they aren't sparring and fighting with it in the current generation, then it doesn't matter and maybe it's time Wing Chun moves forward with good systems that are proving their methods effective against other trained fighters...

[LFJ]

I'd be happy to just see a picture of someone from one of these lines ducking punches, and punching with their chin tucked and their head down as they lunge forward, etc.

By the way, Twenty asked a good question: "Let me turn it around why not do those things? Why is that not wing chun?"

Would you rather they keep their head high and leaning back? There's probably a reason that doesn't happen in the cage...

[Alan Orr]

Fair enough.



If people are, on the whole, happy with this, then again... fair enough.



Okay.



I know you keep saying this, and I know the implication is that if I don't agree with you then it means I am low level and basically cr@p. I also know that by continuing to reply to these posts, I'm beginning to look like an arsehole. :) However, for me and any other low level Wing Chun guys who don't see what you're saying, please help explain a little more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMpcM2Rywv0

What are the Wing Chun concepts/principles or hidden skills that I am missing when I see students:

* Cover to take a punch on the gloves/hands (0.12) (0.23)
* Step forward with weight on the lead leg, and bend the head forward as they punch (0.18) (0.28) (0.38)
* Guard position with both hands/gloves held up by the side of the face (0.30)
* Body moves right with a step as punch targets to the left (0.38)

To me the above might fit with a boxer's training, but I genuinely don't see, or know, how this fits into Wing Chun. So I am asking. Robert Chu, if I'm not mistaken, was exposed to Wing Chun from Yuen Kay San lineage, Yip Man lineage (Hawkins Cheung) and also Gulao Wing Chun. Which of these lineages employ these methods?

If these lineages do employ these methods, then it would be great if I could see it performed elsewhere. If you're right, and they do, then I admit that this is outside of the system I train and you're right - I just don't understand Wing Chun well enough to comment.



I explained to Chris that the sparring I do I don't record. What you would see is that I try, as best as I can, to use the system without modifications. Varying degrees of success. My biggest problem is not from boxing but from Muay Thai; I have real trouble reading their kicks. I don't have time to train ground fighting - work commitments - so I only spar stand up. My sparring doesn't look like your sparring clip - so you would probably say we don't see Wing Chun in the same way.



Really? Witchhunt or crazy email spamming coming my way? :D No thank you.



Leung Ting Wing Tsun. Not the EWTO.


You can't even give your name lol I can't waste my time then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AlwYt3Yo5k

New clip on Hidden skill.

Anyone who looks at a fight and list every second of a fight has no fight understanding

Of course we cover when being hit. I'm not teaching robots. The way you talk about wing chun is from a child like point of view. When you grow up maybe you will see deeper skills

[Alan Orr]

Well, firstly... I would like to understand how those things fit into their system. Plain and simple. Why would they cover and take hits to the hands/gloves? Why would they lean forward with their head down in this way? Why would they lunge forward and strike, with weight forward and often have body going one way and the strike the other? How does that fit into their system? (I ask as I have seen nothing like this from any other Wing Chun lineage)

Secondly, if they can explain why they do it (even though Alan shows very different and contradictory things in his other videos - as KPM just referenced), can they explain where this comes from: Yuen Kay San, Hawkins Cheung or the Gulao Wing Chun lineage?

Saying "it comes from CSL Wing Chun" is not very informative, as CSL Wing Chun came from Robert Chu who studied the YKS, HC and Gulao methods.

This would be a great start to being clearer.

WTF why do I need to explain it to you? You can't see it and can't understand it. Watch the video's that I post and maybe one day you will get it, maybe not.

[Alan Orr]

That is exactly right.

I go on an Easter holiday and come back to see this still going on.

Part of the problem here is some people think there is only one right way which of course is their way to use wing chun and if you are not doing things like that you are violating principles are not doing wing chun. These people often confuse the training with application.

Another part of the problem is most people in wing chun do not look at wing chun as a skill. It's what you can do not how you think things should be that matters. Many people look at it backwards that wing chun is in the concepts. The important thing is can YOU let me stress this YOU YOU YOU YOU make what you do work and at what level YOU can make it work that matters not how you think things should work or what your ideas are. Your so called understanding and knowledge doesn't mean anything if you cannot put it to work. The Orr team makes what they do work and at a level very very few in wing chun can equal.

What many of the comments are basically come down to I do not box but think I understand boxing and do not think how you box is right since it does't match my understanding. Their argument is well I may not be able to last 20 seconds sparring with you but you are doing it wrong and let me correct you.

Good post. It may go over the heads of a few lol

[tc101]

By the way, Twenty asked a good question: "Let me turn it around why not do those things? Why is that not wing chun?"

Would you rather they keep their head high and leaning back? There's probably a reason that doesn't happen in the cage...

Yes exactly. Application or to put it another way sparring teaches you what YOU need to do and how to take your training and put it to work for YOU.

What we often get in these discussions are people not doing application or not sparring or fighting that have ideas that things should and will work a certain way. The thing is they are not doing it they just think things should be that way. This is armchair wing chun.

But you do not really know or understand how things really work for you until you really are doing them. Then you know.

So a person may think I will lean back and keep my chin up and that is how it should be done but until they are doing it and seeing how it really works for them they don't really know. And the thing is if you can do it and make it work that doesn't mean I can or that it is best for me. Much of this is individual.

[BPWT..]

By the way, Twenty asked a good question: "Let me turn it around why not do those things? Why is that not wing chun?"

Would you rather they keep their head high and leaning back? There's probably a reason that doesn't happen in the cage...

I saw the question, but didn't think he was asking seriously. It's kinda Wing Chun 101 (no pun intended :D) - WCK lineages approach body methods in a 'similar' way, and I figured do we need a post that lists why we hold our body the way we do, what relationship that has with our arm positions, what that means regarding facing, what muscles can be engaged, how it relates to WCK footwork, etc?... Just as a counter to the question: why do we CSL WCK leaning forward and bending down the head at they lunge forward with a strike?

Most stick to the basic skeletal alignment of the head being up and the spinal column straight, "Push the head up to the sky, feet firmly on the ground", etc. This is why I ask for some clarification from Chris - why do they do what they do, and where does it come from?

Same for the ducking and weaving, same for the hands positioned by the side of the face, same for them using the hands and gloves to cover and take hits, etc.

I was hoping to learn more from him, before the thread moved from a 'why' to a 'why not'.

[BPWT..]

Sometime we all see something and, well... it begs questions. A few people had questions regarding the CSL fight clip and then perhaps even more for the light sparring clip Alan posted.

Nothing sinister going on here - just people asking Qs to try and understand more. Like I said, I am happy to change my opinion if it's proved wrong :D

[tc101]

Ducking and chin tucking is in the forms (3rd form, and Pole)...as is a type of horse where most of the weight is on the forward leg (Pole form). Wing Chun forms are the alphabet, put together whatever words you need to eliminate the threat.

I have heard that before many times but do not agree. The forms are not the alphabet. That is the dance step model of wing chun where you learn various dance steps and then string them together. If it is not in the forms then it is not wing chun. This is when you get people creatively interpreting forms to find chokes and anything else they want to find. They see various dance steps they want to see. I learned things are more complex than that.

I see the forms as containing and referencing some of basic things like shapes paths structures actions and so forth needed for BEGINNERS to learn and develop certain skills. To go back many pages to my tennis analogy the books will teach you a model for hitting ground strokes but when playing tennis you hardly ever see anyone doing it like they teach it in the books. The model is meant to teach the substance of hitting and controlling the ball and is for beginners. You transcend that model when you begin to really play. Your ground strokes will look very different. It's the same with wing chun. The forms teach you the model. It is not teaching you the alphabet but a model for you to use to develop certain skills. But when you start playing or in our case fighting you will not look like the model.

[tc101]

I saw the question, but didn't think he was asking seriously. It's kinda Wing Chun 101 (no pun intended :D) - WCK lineages approach body methods in a 'similar' way, and I figured do we need a post that lists why we hold our body the way we do, what relationship that has with our arm positions, what that means regarding facing, what muscles can be engaged, how it relates to WCK footwork, etc?... Just as a counter to the question: why do we CSL WCK leaning forward and bending down the head at they lunge forward with a strike?

Most stick to the basic skeletal alignment of the head being up and the spinal column straight, "Push the head up to the sky, feet firmly on the ground", etc. This is why I ask for some clarification from Chris - why do they do what they do, and where does it come from?

Same for the ducking and weaving, same for the hands positioned by the side of the face, same for them using the hands and gloves to cover and take hits, etc.

I was hoping to learn more from him, before the thread moved from a 'why' to a 'why not'.

You are approaching this from a model point of view. The model is this and what you do does not look like the model.

The model will not work in fighting for the most part. The model is to teach you the substance. What you do with the substance is up to you.

[Alan Orr]

Sometime we all see something and, well... it begs questions. A few people had questions regarding the CSL fight clip and then perhaps even more for the light sparring clip Alan posted.

Nothing sinister going on here - just people asking Qs to try and understand more. Like I said, I am happy to change my opinion if it's proved wrong :D

Proved wrong?? We are ones using our system and testing it under pressure. I think my track record as a teacher is fine and is not under question. If you want to be proved right then post your fights or chi sao or training and then we can compare if you have any grounds to be in a position to be proved of anything.

[Alan Orr]

I saw the question, but didn't think he was asking seriously. It's kinda Wing Chun 101 (no pun intended :D) - WCK lineages approach body methods in a 'similar' way, and I figured do we need a post that lists why we hold our body the way we do, what relationship that has with our arm positions, what that means regarding facing, what muscles can be engaged, how it relates to WCK footwork, etc?... Just as a counter to the question: why do we CSL WCK leaning forward and bending down the head at they lunge forward with a strike?

Most stick to the basic skeletal alignment of the head being up and the spinal column straight, "Push the head up to the sky, feet firmly on the ground", etc. This is why I ask for some clarification from Chris - why do they do what they do, and where does it come from?

Same for the ducking and weaving, same for the hands positioned by the side of the face, same for them using the hands and gloves to cover and take hits, etc.

I was hoping to learn more from him, before the thread moved from a 'why' to a 'why not'.


Because we use our wing chun in the real world and in real time. It's not just drills and rolling. When you are in a real world let me know. We deal with the problem in front of us. Like I said it's not robot wing chun

[LFJ]

WCK lineages approach body methods in a 'similar' way, and I figured do we need a post that lists why we hold our body the way we do, what relationship that has with our arm positions, what that means regarding facing, what muscles can be engaged, how it relates to WCK footwork, etc?...

If we look at the way you stand, turn, and move in LTWT, it's not similar to CSLWC or WSLVT. The latter two do these things in much the same way and don't agree with LTWT for the same reasons.


Just as a counter to the question: why do we CSL WCK leaning forward and bending down the head at they lunge forward with a strike?

Probably because they know how to knock someone out, and it's not by keeping the head high, leaning back, and extending the fist out like this guy:

8365

[BPWT..]

WTF why do I need to explain it to you? You can't see it and can't understand it. Watch the video's that I post and maybe one day you will get it, maybe not.

Why? Because you post these clips on a forum. A place where people talk.

But you don't want to give a detailed response when someone asks you questions? :rolleyes:

"You can't even give your name lol I can't waste my time then."

And my name helps you explain something? Call me Beatrice, if you want. :D If you can answer the questions, why not do so?

[LFJ]

Some criticize this as looking like a Western Boxing guard too, but nope. It's Chinese Boxing. They just don't understand Ving Tsun and want to constrain it to their man/wu, cookie cutter model of what the "style" should be regardless of who's using it. These people aren't fighters.

8366

[Alan Orr]

Why? Because you post these clips on a forum. A place where people talk.

But you don't want to give a detailed response when someone asks you questions? :rolleyes:

"You can't even give your name lol I can't waste my time then."

And my name helps you explain something? Call me Beatrice, if you want. :D If you can answer the questions, why not do so?

A girls name suits you

Just because I share a clip or post information in clips for people- doesn't mean I'm here to do a q & a. I'm happy to chat to people and also answer some question at times. But to explain to someone who is so far off track to what I do is a waste of my time.

[BPWT..]

Some criticize this as looking like a Western Boxing guard too, but nope. It's Chinese Boxing. They just don't understand Ving Tsun and want to constrain it to their man/wu, cookie cutter model of what the "style" should be regardless of who's using it. These people aren't fighters.

8366

This picture shows Man Wu structure in a forward stance. Not comparable to Alan's guys keeping both fists up by the side of their heads, centerline open.

[BPWT..]

A girls name suits you

Just because I share a clip or post information in clips for people- doesn't mean I'm here to do a q & a. I'm happy to chat to people and also answer some question at times. But to explain to someone who is so far off track to what I do is a waste of my time.

Sounds like you can't/won't explain. Love the silly insults by the way - mature!

[BPWT..]

@ Alan

Your Hidden clip show's delinking - something trained in the first Chi Sau section of LTWT. It's good stuff, but I don't know why you assume this can't be seen by others.

[Alan Orr]

Sounds like you can't/won't explain. Love the silly insults by the way - mature!

Mature?? Like your girls name. No it's not can't its don't need to.

[chris bougeard]

Why? Because you post these clips on a forum. A place where people talk.

But you don't want to give a detailed response when someone asks you questions? :rolleyes:

"You can't even give your name lol I can't waste my time then."

And my name helps you explain something? Call me Beatrice, if you want. :D If you can answer the questions, why not do so?

Your fixation on the minutiae of what we are doing wrong when using our method in combat is getting very boring. We have been more than accomodating with your anally retentive questioning. You ask, but don't give anything to give your critique any credibility. Show us your wing chun, your expression. It's very easy to do, I'm sure you have a mobile phone with filming capability or know someone who does and you could quickly get someone to film you sparring hard.

You can't expect people to keep going out of their way posting clips and replying to your questions when you give nothing back. The more you post the more you sound like an armchair quarterback who's never really tested his skills. Supply a clip then we can see where we are going wrong. I have a sneaky suspicion though that if you did supply a clip you wouldn't like the constructive criticism it might receive...

[LFJ]

This picture shows Man Wu structure in a forward stance. Not comparable to Alan's guys keeping both fists up by the side of their heads, centerline open.

Wasn't meant to be a comparison, just saying people make uninformed criticisms all the time. But why would it matter?

What is the problem with them guarding like that? Wing Chun can only be applied from the one cooker cutter guard? We don't necessarily have to occupy the centerline in order to control or defend it. It's not a fighting style, but a fighting skill.

[LFJ]

Mature?? Like your girls name.

That could actually be her real name. BPWT = Beatrice P. who does Wing Tsun.

[chris bougeard]

Concur with LFJ, controlling the centreline doesn't mean you have to physically occupy it. This is the sort of observation beginners make

[tc101]

This picture shows Man Wu structure in a forward stance. Not comparable to Alan's guys keeping both fists up by the side of their heads, centerline open.

The mun wu structure is a model. If you stand like that you will get murdered by anyone who can box. Ten minutes sparring will show you that folly. That said what the model teaches is sound.

Let's assume that you can make it work though. Just because you can doesn't mean everyone can or should.

The test for your wing chun like in boxing is not in how close you look like the model but the level you can perform at.

I'll bet that if you spent time sparring with someone throwing mostly solid hooks and swings your hands will naturally go to where they need to be and that will be to cover.

You seem stuck on we are taught to put our hands in the mun wu and to occupy the centerline. Yes. As beginners. So that you become aware of the line and how to use it. Just as boxing beginners are taught to keep their hands up in guard. That is taught as the model for a reason also. They are not restricted to the model though. As they develop their hands will not be set.

The model is not application.

[chris bougeard]

The mun wu structure is a model. If you stand like that you will get murdered by anyone who can box. Ten minutes sparring will show you that folly. That said what the model teaches is sound.

Let's assume that you can make it work though. Just because you can doesn't mean everyone can or should.

The test for your wing chun like in boxing is not in how close you look like the model but the level you can perform at.

I'll bet that if you spent time sparring with someone throwing mostly solid hooks and swings your hands will naturally go to where they need to be and that will be to cover.

You seem stuck on we are taught to put our hands in the mun wu and to occupy the centerline. Yes. As beginners. So that you become aware of the line and how to use it. Just as boxing beginners are taught to keep their hands up in guard. That is taught as the model for a reason also. They are not restricted to the model though. As they develop their hands will not be set.

The model is not application.

Nice and succinct

[LFJ]

Relevant interview excerpt with WSL:

Q: Are you a traditionalist?
A: I firmly believe that Wing Chun is something very logical. As long as it stays logical it doesn’t matter what you call it or what you’re actually doing. If it is logical, if it works, use it! Make the art your slave, and never allow the art be your master.

[BPWT..]

Your fixation on the minutiae of what we are doing wrong when using our method in combat is getting very boring.

Again, I am NOT talking about you doing something wrong, I am asking how these things fit into your Wing Chun - as they don't seem to me to be found in other lines, so I ask how it fits into you conceptual system, and I ask where this comes from (from Robert's various influences). I have no idea why you can't see that.



We have been more than accomodating with your anally retentive questioning.

You say accommodating but neither you nor Alan have answered the questions asked, and Alan even said he wouldn't waste his time on them. That is accommodating by what definition?


You can't expect people to keep going out of their way posting clips and replying to your questions when you give nothing back.

I'm not asking anyone to post clips. I am asking questions and they are not being answered. That's your right (to not answer them), but you keep saying you are answering them. If you haven't, I've asked again.


The more you post the more you sound like an armchair quarterback who's never really tested his skills. Supply a clip then we can see where we are going wrong. I have a sneaky suspicion though that if you did supply a clip you wouldn't like the constructive criticism it might receive...

I already told you (twice at least) that the sparring I do (most of it is not with fellow Wing Tsunners) is not recorded - and as far as know those guys have no intention of recording what we do. That's fine with me, as I couldn't care less about recording it either. But for that very reason I have not asked you, or Alan, to supply more clips. All I have done is asked some questions. KPM asked similar questions too. You don't have to answer them if you don't want to. But in that case I don't understand why you are here.


This is the sort of observation beginners make

You know, not too long ago we had similar statements ("you're beginners", "low level", "not understanding", etc) from a PBVT guy. It's really not constructive or accurate. You say I don't accept anything outside of the system I train (absolutely not true) but then you make statements that show if someone asks you something you don't like, or something you won't answer, you stay within your own box and resort to name calling. Considering both you and Alan teach, it's a little strange.


The mun wu structure is a model. If you stand like that you will get murdered by anyone who can box. Ten minutes sparring will show you that folly. That said what the model teaches is sound.

I never once advocated that someone should stand in/keep Man Sau Wu Sau for 10 minutes. The point I was trying to make is that model (and what it is teaching regarding elbow position, gates, centre line, etc) are not consistent with someone holding both fists at the side of their head - which is why I asked why the CSL WCK guys were doing it. How does it fit into their conceptual framework?


Wing Chun can only be applied from the one cooker cutter guard?

Where did I say that?

[BPWT..]

Relevant interview excerpt with WSL:

Q: Are you a traditionalist?
A: I firmly believe that Wing Chun is something very logical. As long as it stays logical it doesn’t matter what you call it or what you’re actually doing. If it is logical, if it works, use it! Make the art your slave, and never allow the art be your master.

It's a great quote. But to determine if something is logical, a pretty standard test is to study the principles and/or methods to see if something is correct or not.
You can't do this without, first, asking some questions. So I ask questions. And people tell me they won't waste their time answering them. In short, WSL talks about not being a slave 'to' the art, but for 'you' to be its master.

If you can show me a quote where WSL says don't ask questions, and, more specifically, that people shouldn't answer them... then we can talk about Wing Chun and logic.

[BPWT..]

That could actually be her real name. BPWT = Beatrice P. who does Wing Tsun.

:D B for Buda, P for Pest.

She is a He, though I'm happy to camp it up if people get more satisfaction out of naming calling to women. :rolleyes:

[BPWT..]

Wasn't meant to be a comparison, just saying people make uninformed criticisms all the time. But why would it matter?

What is the problem with them guarding like that? Wing Chun can only be applied from the one cooker cutter guard? We don't necessarily have to occupy the centerline in order to control or defend it. It's not a fighting style, but a fighting skill.

Just to add, in the HFI history thread, I posted:

"The pic I posted is fairly old, from Leung Ting's Wing Tsun Kuen book published in 1978. It is okay for what it is, but doesn't show 'depth' for the viewer, so doesn't show how in, for example, a Man Sau + Wu Sau, we'd also define two ranges (in Man Sau: hand to elbow; and in Wu Sau: hand to shoulder). But it gives a general idea."

So no, of course Man/Wu isn't or shouldn't be one cookie cutter guard, but the guard (however it is formed) is best (IMO) if it can monitor the two ranges, the gates, and incorporate good elbow position. For sure there are variations and options.

But I asked about the CSL guys using the two fists by the head as it wouldn't fit with the above idea - so I was asking what, in their line, it does fit with (and, as always, where it comes from - as a point of reference for their system).

[LFJ]

Wing Chun can only be applied from the one cooker cutter guard?Where did I say that?

I don't see what the gripe is then. Wing Chun can be used from any guard. You do what keeps your head on.


It's a great quote. But to determine if something is logical, a pretty standard test is to study the principles and/or methods to see if something is correct or not.

No. That's just theory. If you do live sparring and fight, you will know very quickly what is logical and what is not.


In short, WSL talks about not making the art 'your' slave, but for 'you' to be its master

What do you think that means?

[LFJ]

But I asked about the CSL guys using the two fists by the head as it wouldn't fit with the above idea - so I was asking what, in their line, it does fit with (and, as always, where it comes from - as a point of reference for their system).

In one of Alan's DVDs he shows covering the head with both hands to guard against large overhead or round strikes. It's the mainly emergency action found in the BJ form. It can be applied as a guard with many useful offensive or defensive possibilities and fits perfectly with their Wing Chun fighting strategy, where they won't just be facing other WC-type attacks.

[BPWT..]

In one of Alan's DVDs he shows covering the head with both hands to guard against large overhead or round strikes. It's the mainly emergency action found in the BJ form. It can be applied as a guard with many useful offensive or defensive possibilities and fits perfectly with their Wing Chun fighting strategy, where they won't just be facing other WC-type attacks.

Perfect. That's exactly what I was looking for. A description and how it would fit into their framework. Our BT approach is not quite the same, but it doesn't matter as, like I said, I've approached this saying I wanted to know the 'why's'.

My only complaint is that this description of the CSL approach came from someone outside of their lineage, when one of their line's main guys has actually been posting here.

Still, an answer is better than no answer. So thank you, LFJ.

[LFJ]

For BPWT. Have a look at the type of guarding he does here. Still Wing Chun, I would say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9mTuia70A

[chris bougeard]

Perfect. That's exactly what I was looking for. A description and how it would fit into their framework. Our BT approach is not quite the same, but it doesn't matter as, like I said, I've approached this saying I wanted to know the 'why's'.

My only complaint is that this description of the CSL approach came from someone outside of their lineage, when one of their line's main guys has actually been posting here.

Still, an answer is better than no answer. So thank you, LFJ.

Your tone is pretty insulting. You're implying that we can't explain our own system. I chose not to reply because I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you. You're happy now because LFJ's explanation makes sense to you but only because it fits with your understanding. Ok, I'll bite, where the hands are held in a pre-fight/guard posture is always going to be based on personal preference and on what I need to do in that moment of time.

If I'm suddenly under a barrage I may feel the need to utilise a covering strategy before being able to extend my bridges/structure into my opponent. The idea of a fixed static guard is nonsensical to me, I will always be moving,enticing and enquiring (these are some of our methods you so kindly pointed out about 100 pages ago). I'm not thinking "better use double prayer hand from Bil jee) I use the mechanics/methods that seem appropriate to me at that point in time. Experience will often dictate my choices here not logic and theory. Don't be so fixated on guard positions, what truly matters is what happens when the hands start flying. We seem to do ok at that point.

[JPinAZ]

In one of Alan's DVDs he shows covering the head with both hands to guard against large overhead or round strikes. It's the mainly emergency action found in the BJ form. It can be applied as a guard with many useful offensive or defensive possibilities and fits perfectly with their Wing Chun fighting strategy, where they won't just be facing other WC-type attacks.

First, I'm not critiquing what Alan or his guys do with this comment - what anyone else does has no bearing on my understanding of wing chun and if it works for them, more power to them :)

That said, you bring up a good point - that this is mainly an emergency action found in BJ from a WC perspective. So IMO, this is really a last ditch recovery effort we use mainly because someone got into our space, we lost structure and/or facing and we have no options left, not a WC bai jong ready stance - regardless what type of fighter we are facing. Sure, people can fight from any position they chose. But fighting from a stance where both hands are held in close to the body/chin, you lose a lot of your ability to apply some very key basic wing chun fighting principles.
First, you have no 2 lines or offence/defense and you lose ability to occupy space on center which is essential to WC's Jeet Kiu ideas or applying WC's gate theories for defense (4-gate) or bridging engagement strategies (6 gate). Also, you're are giving up range and timing which you'll just have to recover. Basically, you're putting yourself in a recovery timeframe right from the start. While you can fight from this stance easily enough, and many arts do - doing so it makes it quite a bit harder to apply WC's engagement & bridging strategies from a wing chun SNT concept/principle perspective.

I'm not saying someone should just stand around like a 'mo with your hands in a static bai jong ready stance either. But from a wing chun principle perspective, BJ emergency/recovery methods are the last place I want to be, not a position to start from.

[BPWT..]

For BPWT. Have a look at the type of guarding he does here. Still Wing Chun, I would say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9mTuia70A

Yes, I wouldn't argue that this isn't Wing Chun. And in close this is how things often look. So I don't have an issue with problem solving in this way. In that case, what fits with their system would also fit in mine. In Lat Sau this type of scenario is often found.

But here's where I see what would lead me to ask a question. :rolleyes: and yes, I'm aware that this will be met with derision from Chris. :)

I would ask how this form of covering (if we call it that for convenience) would be a good Wing Chun strategy as a starting point? I understand that when a punch is thrown and you've moved in, this is a possible outcome. But why would you use this covering position before a strike is thrown?

This is why I asked the question regarding the 'light sparring clip' from Alan. One of the fighters often held this position before facing an attack. Now I'm not saying it is wrong (for fear of all Hell's wrath coming down on me), and maybe for a boxer it might absolutely be right... but I am instead asking what is the CSL WC strategy for having, essentially, the arms compressed in this position before something has happened?

Why, for example, have this position as opposed to using something that approximates more the Man and Wu 'structure' that gives better coverage (gates and centre line) and puts your weapons a little closer to the target?

From the structure I'm talking about (and it can come in various shapes and sizes, if you like, I'm not necessarily talking about a text book Man Sau and Wu) it can still compress if the punch (say that whipping punch) comes in, and can still be used even if your timing happened to be a little bit late (which is often the case when sparring, IMO).

[BPWT..]

Your tone is pretty insulting. You're implying that we can't explain our own system.

Look, I'm sure you're not truly wounded by this debate/argument/discussion. But if someone refuses to give more details it can only be because a) they can't be arsed (so why come here), b) they can't.

Believe me, if you find this insulting you should read some of the exchanges I had with Graham H. This is buddies chatting in a pub compared to those crazy days.


I chose not to reply because I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you.

To quote a Morrissey lyric, then you should maybe "get off the stage." :D


You're happy now because LFJ's explanation makes sense to you but only because it fits with your understanding.

I'm "happy" because LFJ made the effort to answer - even though he's not from your lineage. Which, let's be honest, is more than you did. Does it fit my understanding (in terms of what I learn)? Not exactly - we wouldn't use this idea and/or motion from BT in exactly the same way. But I am willing to concede that you guys do, and so now I know a little more (have a slightly better understanding) of what you're saying (or not saying).



Ok, I'll bite, where the hands are held in a pre-fight/guard posture is always going to be based on personal preference and on what I need to do in that moment of time.

Thanks - this relates to my post just before this one. When you say 'that moment in time' and you're talking about a pre-fight/guard, I asked why you would assume a covering position before an attack. Again, just trying to understand your system's thinking.


If I'm suddenly under a barrage I may feel the need to utilise a covering strategy before being able to extend my bridges/structure into my opponent.

I agree, if under a barrage this might be a solution - I agreed above, too.


The idea of a fixed static guard is nonsensical to me, I will always be moving,enticing and enquiring (these are some of our methods you so kindly pointed out about 100 pages ago)

I agree. It is only static until it acts (no one holds it out and doesn't change/react to what happens next). But as a starting point, it has some strong/positive attributes. IMO, more so than starting from a covering position. If your opinion is different, that's cool - but please explain why.

[KPM]

Mature?? Like your girls name. No it's not can't its don't need to.

Wow Alan! You're being a real *****. I'm surprised and wouldn't have expected it of you. But its obvious this thread is going nowhere. Honest questions ignored. Now degenerating to taunts and name-calling. Good luck to you and your fighters. Never meant to cause such a hubbub by just stating the obvious. Go figure!

[BPWT..]

Okay, so while I was typing JP summed it up maybe a little clearer than I just had. :)

[tc101]

First, I'm not critiquing what Alan or his guys do with this comment - what anyone else does has no bearing on my understanding of wing chun and if it works for them, more power to them :)

That said, you bring up a good point - that this is mainly an emergency action found in BJ from a WC perspective. So IMO, this is really a last ditch recovery effort we use mainly because someone got into our space, we lost structure and/or facing and we have no options left, not a WC bai jong ready stance - regardless what type of fighter we are facing. Sure, people can fight from any position they chose. But fighting from a stance where both hands are held in close to the body/chin, you lose a lot of your ability to apply some very key basic wing chun fighting principles.
First, you have no 2 lines or offence/defense and you lose ability to occupy space on center which is essential to WC's Jeet Kiu ideas or applying WC's gate theories for defense (4-gate) or bridging engagement strategies (6 gate). Also, you're are giving up range and timing which you'll just have to recover. Basically, you're putting yourself in a recovery timeframe right from the start. While you can fight from this stance easily enough, and many arts do - doing so it makes it quite a bit harder to apply WC's engagement & bridging strategies from a wing chun SNT concept/principle perspective.

I'm not saying someone should just stand around like a 'mo with your hands in a static bai jong ready stance either. But from a wing chun principle perspective, BJ emergency/recovery methods are the last place I want to be, not a position to start from.

Yes yes yes this is how you think things should work but that doesn't mean they will or that this is how another person should do them.

Here's the thing just because people have ideas does not make it so. The trouble with the oh you don't want to do this or that because of this or that way of thinking is that in wing chun circles it never involves doing it. I mean rarely do we hear any body saying here is what I really do, here I am fighting and doing what I say. When they do like Orr then they are criticized as that is not wing chun or how things should be done. The critique is just more of here are the reasons I think this or that is better. AS Orr pointed out the critique never seems to be any body showing how they can do it differently and make it work. Yes I know it is a forum but my point is that what is behind or the basis for many of these views. I think the basis is not I am doing it and it is working but in my mind this is how I think things should work.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Alan's WC looks like WC that is used/trained VS non-WC fighters.
I have also noted that, having seen his videos and such, he seems to follow the mantra:
See it taught, see it fought.
In other words his guys fight like they train and train like they fight.
His WC looks the same in training (sparring) as it does in the ring ( typically).

I don't recall seeing that very much in other WC systems.

[tc101]

Your tone is pretty insulting. You're implying that we can't explain our own system. I chose not to reply because I didn't feel the need to spoon feed you. You're happy now because LFJ's explanation makes sense to you but only because it fits with your understanding. Ok, I'll bite, where the hands are held in a pre-fight/guard posture is always going to be based on personal preference and on what I need to do in that moment of time.

If I'm suddenly under a barrage I may feel the need to utilise a covering strategy before being able to extend my bridges/structure into my opponent. The idea of a fixed static guard is nonsensical to me, I will always be moving,enticing and enquiring (these are some of our methods you so kindly pointed out about 100 pages ago). I'm not thinking "better use double prayer hand from Bil jee) I use the mechanics/methods that seem appropriate to me at that point in time. Experience will often dictate my choices here not logic and theory. Don't be so fixated on guard positions, what truly matters is what happens when the hands start flying. We seem to do ok at that point.

What you are saying is exactly right and also holds rue for western boxing. The problem is that you cannot explain boxing to people who do not box and won't get in the ring. They think it is an intellectual puzzle. I find this whole thing really funny it is like people who don't box arguing with a pro boxer about how to spar.

You are at the free form stage and they are at the model stage.

[JPinAZ]

Yes yes yes this is how you think things should work but that doesn't mean they will or that this is how another person should do them.

Here's the thing just because people have ideas does not make it so. The trouble with the oh you don't want to do this or that because of this or that way of thinking is that in wing chun circles it never involves doing it. I mean rarely do we hear any body saying here is what I really do, here I am fighting and doing what I say. When they do like Orr then they are criticized as that is not wing chun or how things should be done. The critique is just more of here are the reasons I think this or that is better. AS Orr pointed out the critique never seems to be any body showing how they can do it differently and make it work. Yes I know it is a forum but my point is that what is behind or the basis for many of these views. I think the basis is not I am doing it and it is working but in my mind this is how I think things should work.

If fighting from a wing chun perspective using wing chun principles, and aiming towards a goal of fighting with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, then that is simple how it's done. Has nothing to do with how I 'think' things should work - I speak from my own understanding of wing chun concept/princple based on my own experience. Of course I don't get this simply from standing around alone in my house in front of a camera theorizing and droning on for hours on end as some others here seem to do - I prove it out during my own personal training sessions each and every week. You assuming otherwise just makes you look like, well, an a55.

Alan and his guys can operate and interpret wing chun concepts however they want. If they chose to start from a recovery timeframe guard, that's their choice and no skin off my nose. I used to box, and back then I held similar guards as they do now. And my personal experience tells me, that if I want to apply wing chun bia jong & jeet kiu concepts/strategies, that old closed off guard doesn't really support that. End of story.

[Grumblegeezer]

Kieth, by the way, that was a real douchebag move posting what you did on the kung fu forum!

??? I took a look over on the Kung-fu forum and saw where Kieth had posted the clips Alan had provided of Josh Kaldani's recent fight and also a clip of a couple of Alan's guys training. I don't see the problem. Although Keith may not have intended this, the response seems positive.

[KPM]

Kieth, by the way, that was a real douchebag move posting what you did on the kung fu forum!

Between you and Hendrik this place has gone downhill. Both of you need to quite pushing your agenda's down everyone's throats. Voice your opinion, leave it at that. I think it fair to say that I speak for many when I say knock off the horsesh!t, enough is enough.

With all due respect....FXCK YOU DAVE! Go back and read this thread from the beginning. I made a simple comment about not seeing any obvious Wing Chun in the clips posted and end up being told I am "low level" and "stupid" and the "walking dead." You tell me what kind of "horsesh!t" that is!!! I simply asked if the biomechanics I was seeing in a sparring clip that looked amazingly like western boxing were typical of CSL Wing Chun and suddenly I'm "pushing an agenda"? Just what "agenda" might that be? I voiced my opinion and have gotten all kinds of criticism and flak for it.

Now you are calling me a "douchebag"? I posted Alan's clips in the general forum to see what others would think. I did it because I might very well be wrong and people will accept that those clips represent good Wing Chun. I posted them with a very positive tone just as Alan himself would have. I didn't try and prejudice people towards them in any way. Alan and his guys have nothing to hide. Those are good clips. So just what problem do you see with people other than Wing Chun people viewing them????

Again, just what "agenda" am I pushing down everyone's throats? And how has Hendrik been making things go downhill? He has been very forthcoming with information lately. You don't have to agree with his information, but at least he is providing what he knows and answering questions.

[jhexx]

This is my first time posting here, and I wanted to introduce myself first since this is my first post. I been lurking here reading a lot of the posts on this forum, and decided to join based on wanting to read others experience during their transitions in learning Wing Chun, and I emptied my cup so that I can learn things from the topics posted here. Since I really do not know anyone on these forums, I felt maybe having a unbiased look at this topic, just to keep it plain and simple, in the eyes of a outside reader and observer of these boards as of the last 3 weeks.

I can see why some feel that watching the original clip feels to some that it doesn't look like Wing Chun. And to some degree just on the surface, you can assume to be right, and not wrong for seeing it that way. I too looked at the clip quite a few times, as this topic has stirred the members of this forum to express different opinions of varying degrees. After reading everyone's thoughts, and watching the videos, I can clearly state what I see, as my opinion may differ from others here.

At first glance, I truly couldn't see, if I did not know how to look at it with a certain eye, that it was pure Wing Chun from the traditional point of view, regarding stances, footwork, forms, etc. But, as I continued really looking at it, literally going over the footage just a few times, I can actually kinda see the principles being used during the original clip, that allowed the victor to apply pressure to his rival during the match. It actually brought me back to a few years ago, as my father once told me about Wing Chun, and the mind state one should look at Wing Chun with...

He told me to learn the basics, all the theories, study the forms and train and practice as much as I can, but to never just stick to the things you learn and think that there is all there is to it. Allow yourself to learn yourself thru the art, keep what works for you, and discard what does not apply. Everyone's Wing Chun is different and the reason for that is all about body expression, and the art of expressing it is brought about and shown in many different ways depending on the practitioner, as well as the way they are taught and the way the practitioner sees and thinks what was taught to him, in his or her own interpretations.

In short, I feel that there is Wing Chun being used in that clip, but I feel that there are other influences too, made to work in the environment (MMA), and if it works, and you are using the very principles of Wing Chun jusxt in your own interpretation without deviating from the original theory and it is applied in a way that works, why would it be any less Wing Chun that one who applies the same moveset, in a traditional manner? I think what matters more is, does this work using the actual orignal theory with minor/major modifications, or not? That to me is the bigger question that needs answering. At the same time, Traditional Wing chun is just That Traditional and we should respect it, but if Wing Chun can evolve, and become more useful in modern applications, why look at it any different than where it comes from?

A father has a child. The child has his own idea of how his father thinks, but in his perspective there are deviations that mixes into his idea of interpreting what his father knows. Now it may look different, seem different, hell, even feel different, but if the son's ideas are born from the seed his father set, but in his mind, there are things that works better or are more applicable for his use in his modern setting, it's hard to say it is or isn't something, when the original ideas a spawned from such a seed.

[BPWT..]

This thread has become really... weird.

[KPM]

You know exactly what what you were doing, your intentions were clear. You posted those video's hoping that others would agree with you and the guys on the Kung Fu forum seen right through you. Look again at their comments.

---If I was trying to get people to agree with me I would have posted the videos with a comment like "do you guys think this is Wing Chun" or "what you guys think of this so-called Wing Chun", etc. I posted those clips truly curious as to what others would say so I posted them in a positive fashion just as Alan would have posted them. Then some individuals that had obviously followed this thread chimed in and kind of "skewed" things a bit. If the thread gets plenty of positive comments I welcome that. So just how in the heck do YOU know what MY intentions were?

Who the hell are you to tell them that they aren't applying Wing Chun correctly you self righteous pr!ck.

--Look Dave. I have NEVER told anyone how they should apply their Wing Chun. BPWT and I asked some pretty obvious, direct and honest questions. We have done our best to remain polite and respectful despite many of the responses we have received to the contrary. Why are you getting so emotional over things? Just what is your "agenda" here?


You and Hendrick get on a subject and spam the boards trying to interject the subject into every conversation forcing your point of view as if others can't have an opinion. Enough already, everyone has heard your point, we all don't have to agree, but to keep arguing is just plain stupid.

---Just what have I "spammed" on the boards? Give me ONE example! I'm not tc101 giving the same answer in every post....."you don't train realistically!" YOU have given this whole thing a very bizarre turn! Just what is your "agenda" behind this over-the-top emotional response? What have I ever done to you? (because I note that your wrath is directed at me and not BPWT, even though he is the one that has been doing all the posting on this thread recently)

---In the prior 4 pages I posted one time. So just how am I "keeping the argument going?"

[Alan Orr]

Wow Alan! You're being a real *****. I'm surprised and wouldn't have expected it of you. But its obvious this thread is going nowhere. Honest questions ignored. Now degenerating to taunts and name-calling. Good luck to you and your fighters. Never meant to cause such a hubbub by just stating the obvious. Go figure!

The only obvious thing is that you have no clue

[Alan Orr]

Alan's WC looks like WC that is used/trained VS non-WC fighters.
I have also noted that, having seen his videos and such, he seems to follow the mantra:
See it taught, see it fought.
In other words his guys fight like they train and train like they fight.
His WC looks the same in training (sparring) as it does in the ring ( typically).

I don't recall seeing that very much in other WC systems.

Thank you. Great post

[KPM]

Look at this thread, 22 pages of dribble that should have ended 20 pages ago. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair in singling you out,

The last time I checked, it takes at least 2 parties to carry out a discussion/argument. How can you single out one side and not the other? Why are you attacking me?


I don't have an agenda, nothing to prove, I only call it as I see it. When I smell bullsh!t I'm going to point it out.

You seem to have just as much of an "agenda" as I have. And I call it as I see it as well. If someone doesn't like what I have to say, then that's fine. If someone is going to tell me I'm "low-level" or "stupid" or "you just don't get it" or "you have no clue" without even trying to answer my questions or see my points, then I think I have the right to support my own opinion and take up for myself. So you can just take your own brand of bullsh!t and put it in an appropriate place!



I'm done with this whole ridiculous conversation.

You are the one that took it to a whole new level of "ridiculous." But I'm done to. I was done 5 pages ago until you chose to call me out. So I will say once again in parting Dave: FXCK YOU!

[KPM]

This is my first time posting here, and I wanted to introduce myself first since this is my first post.d.

Welcome to the forum jhexx! Thanks for the input. Sorry for the drama. Its not always like this here. I promise! ;)

[jhexx]

Welcome to the forum jhexx! Thanks for the input. Sorry for the drama. Its not always like this here. I promise! ;)

Much appreciated!

[Grumblegeezer]

Yep, from the point of view of any meaningful commentary, this thread should have ended about 20 pages ago. On the other hand, it is getting pretty funny lately. Sort of an "F-you!" "No F-you!!!!", "Yeah, well take your Tan-sau and shove it where the sun don't shine!!!!! conversation.

Ok, I'm almost done laughing. Just a few chuckles left. ...There now. All done. Say guys, whatever happened to accepting that others are entitled to having a different point of view. Honestly, both groups have made some decent observations. But it's almost like there's a void left by Kevin's absence that someone has to fill. Same after Terrance left. Dang, now I'm laughing again. Excuse me for now.

[Alan Orr]

Perfect. That's exactly what I was looking for. A description and how it would fit into their framework. Our BT approach is not quite the same, but it doesn't matter as, like I said, I've approached this saying I wanted to know the 'why's'.

My only complaint is that this description of the CSL approach came from someone outside of their lineage, when one of their line's main guys has actually been posting here.

Still, an answer is better than no answer. So thank you, LFJ.

No answer??

I post 3 videos addressing questions -

On types of punching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfYmNhg4f9c

On Bridge control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsOf4p96Lk

On Hidden skills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AlwYt3Yo5k


Other questions? The hand positioning you asked about - I didn't think that was a real question. If you have fight skills then you will know - You train your skill your way. The you need to apply it to the problem - thats the conceptual part of wing chun. You have someone swing at you - then you can't just have you hands in the middle. We are not robots we use our skills to deal with real problems.

[Alan Orr]

With all due respect....FXCK YOU DAVE! Go back and read this thread from the beginning. I made a simple comment about not seeing any obvious Wing Chun in the clips posted and end up being told I am "low level" and "stupid" and the "walking dead." You tell me what kind of "horsesh!t" that is!!! I simply asked if the biomechanics I was seeing in a sparring clip that looked amazingly like western boxing were typical of CSL Wing Chun and suddenly I'm "pushing an agenda"? Just what "agenda" might that be? I voiced my opinion and have gotten all kinds of criticism and flak for it.

Now you are calling me a "douchebag"? I posted Alan's clips in the general forum to see what others would think. I did it because I might very well be wrong and people will accept that those clips represent good Wing Chun. I posted them with a very positive tone just as Alan himself would have. I didn't try and prejudice people towards them in any way. Alan and his guys have nothing to hide. Those are good clips. So just what problem do you see with people other than Wing Chun people viewing them????

Again, just what "agenda" am I pushing down everyone's throats? And how has Hendrik been making things go downhill? He has been very forthcoming with information lately. You don't have to agree with his information, but at least he is providing what he knows and answering questions.

Yes you posted your opinion and I told you our system was different too boxing and different to many other wing chun styles. But you continued to repeat the same - well done, but its still not wing chun. Can you not see that is disrespect to my fighters hard work, my hard work my teachers hard work. If your told it is our Wing Chun and you don't see it then 'fine. But don't keep telling me its not after I confirmed it was our wing chun. Its just Wing Chun you don't understand.

[LFJ]

I posted Alan's clips in the general forum to see what others would think. I did it because I might very well be wrong and people will accept that those clips represent good Wing Chun.

You as a Wing Chun practitioner yourself can't see it, and you thought perhaps people on the general forum who would likely know much less about Wing Chun might? Sounds fishy...

You'd really be admitting you have super low-level Wing Chun understanding then, if non-practitioners can see it and you can't (which seems to have been the actual outcome). If everyone there agreed with you that there was no Wing Chun in the fight you would have undoubtedly brought it back to this thread as points for your team. Instead it's another mark on the scoreboard for the Iron Wolves!

[LFJ]

You have someone swing at you - then you can't just have you hands in the middle. We are not robots we use our skills to deal with real problems.

There would be no question if people were doing live sparring and fighting like you guys. All the theory in the world won't keep your head on your shoulders.

[BPWT..]

Yes, I wouldn't argue that this isn't Wing Chun. And in close this is how things often look. So I don't have an issue with problem solving in this way. In that case, what fits with their system would also fit in mine. In Lat Sau this type of scenario is often found.

But here's where I see what would lead me to ask a question. :rolleyes: and yes, I'm aware that this will be met with derision from Chris. :)

I would ask how this form of covering (if we call it that for convenience) would be a good Wing Chun strategy as a starting point? I understand that when a punch is thrown and you've moved in, this is a possible outcome. But why would you use this covering position before a strike is thrown?

This is why I asked the question regarding the 'light sparring clip' from Alan. One of the fighters often held this position before facing an attack. Now I'm not saying it is wrong (for fear of all Hell's wrath coming down on me), and maybe for a boxer it might absolutely be right... but I am instead asking what is the CSL WC strategy for having, essentially, the arms compressed in this position before something has happened?

Why, for example, have this position as opposed to using something that approximates more the Man and Wu 'structure' that gives better coverage (gates and centre line) and puts your weapons a little closer to the target?

From the structure I'm talking about (and it can come in various shapes and sizes, if you like, I'm not necessarily talking about a text book Man Sau and Wu) it can still compress if the punch (say that whipping punch) comes in, and can still be used even if your timing happened to be a little bit late (which is often the case when sparring, IMO).

Alan, regarding the hand position, LFJ posted this clip - one of yours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9mTuia70A

Above is what I said, and the questions I asked. No one is talking about 'just having hands in the middle'. I also said that of course they don't remain there. For example, I said this regarding the Man Sau Wu Sau guard:


I agree. It is only static until it acts (no one holds it out and doesn't change/react to what happens next). But as a starting point, it has some strong/positive attributes. IMO, more so than starting from a covering position. If your opinion is different, that's cool - but please explain why.


The questions I make above were also asked by JPinAZ. It's about why you would assume a covering position before an attack.

As always, you can do whatever you like - but I am asking why you do it that way, and above I explained why I am asking it.

If you read what I posted, I think you can see that I'm asking genuine questions.


There would be no question if people were doing live sparring and fighting like you guys. All the theory in the world won't keep your head on your shoulders.

I've already said that I do spar (light contact with no protection and also harder contact with gloves, box and gum shield), but I've also said that I don't fight in competitions. So I do spar and I do have questions for Alan, based on watching his sparring. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[chris bougeard]

Alan, regarding the hand position, LFJ posted this clip - one of yours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9mTuia70A

Above is what I said, and the questions I asked. No one is talking about 'just having hands in the middle'. I also said that of course they don't remain there. For example, I said this regarding the Man Sau Wu Sau guard:




The questions I make above were also asked by JPinAZ. It's about why you would assume a covering position before an attack.

As always, you can do whatever you like - but I am asking why you do it that way, and above I explained why I am asking it.

If you read what I posted, I think you can see that I'm asking genuine questions.



I've already said that I do spar (light contact with no protection and also harder contact with gloves, box and gum shield), but I've also said that I don't fight in competitions. So I do spar and I do have questions for Alan, based on watching his sparring. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If you sparred with any degree of pressure you wouldn't continue to ask stupid questions about hand positions, did you read my explanation of hand positioning? You strike me as an eloquent and intelligent person and I think you understand perfectly what we've explained. Now your just making yourself look silly, move on.

[LFJ]

If you sparred with any degree of pressure you wouldn't continue to ask stupid questions about hand positions,

And against other than just likeminded individuals, like Alan and Sean are doing with their students.

[Alan Orr]

Alan, regarding the hand position, LFJ posted this clip - one of yours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj9mTuia70A

Above is what I said, and the questions I asked. No one is talking about 'just having hands in the middle'. I also said that of course they don't remain there. For example, I said this regarding the Man Sau Wu Sau guard:




The questions I make above were also asked by JPinAZ. It's about why you would assume a covering position before an attack.

As always, you can do whatever you like - but I am asking why you do it that way, and above I explained why I am asking it.

If you read what I posted, I think you can see that I'm asking genuine questions.



I've already said that I do spar (light contact with no protection and also harder contact with gloves, box and gum shield), but I've also said that I don't fight in competitions. So I do spar and I do have questions for Alan, based on watching his sparring. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.



Now it's hard to answer this question without implying that you are either a beginners level in the martial arts or just a day dreamer. But you are pushing the point again. So let's make it clear for you. Whoever you are.

It you spar or fight with good level guys then you will get hit. If will not always be able to apply you drilled application in real time. I know it sucks but in the real world you have to have back up plans. So bridging controlling and taking out you opponent in 3 seconds is great. But when your opponent is tough and not playing you have to be able to take the rough with the smooth.

The defence block I showed as a few levels to it, so I only showed the basic idea. Of course most people can work out that I'm showing a clip of 3-5 mins to open peoples mind to CSL wing Chun and to share some helpful ideas - as my guys have a lot if real pressure experience many people find it helpful that we share our hard earned knowledge.

If the guy throw a fast punch and your too late to control it then you need to block that's the bottom line

If anyone can tell him they can spar or fight one of my guys or me and not need to cover up at some point then please say now as I like to hear about it. I have never sparred and not had to cover. In chi sao I do better as it's a focused alive drill which I have a higher that most skill. On the street it's not a sport or a game so lots of rules change, that's another story.

So please grow up and understand wing chun is not a computer game or a black and white result

[BPWT..]

If you sparred with any degree of pressure you wouldn't continue to ask stupid questions about hand positions...

It's because I spar that I am asking these questions :confused:



...did you read my explanation of hand positioning?

I did, but you didn't address what I was talking about - as far as I could tell. In a nutshell, what is your system's logic behind assuming a covering position before receiving punches, as opposed to having a guard that, from a starting point, offers you the chance to monitor the gates and ranges, plus puts your weapons closer to the target?

I'm trying to understand how this idea fits into your CSL system. JPinAZ asked essentially the same question. You haven't replied since then, so I don't see where you answered. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

I agreed with you that during a barrage of attacks this covering can and will happen.


And against other than just likeminded individuals, like Alan and Sean are doing with their students.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. I only spar regularly with a few WT guys (due to how and where I train these days), but I also train with people from other arts (some with a MT background, some a Karate background and boxing background). I admit that none of these people are professional fighters. Is that what you mean when you say 'likeminded individuals'.

If yes, then okay... I admit that I am not sparring with pro fighters who make a living from getting in the ring. But I am training with people who are looking to punch and kick me hard. Not sure how that invalidates my opinion, or makes my experience not worth considering.

If you're critiquing the fact that my sparring is stand up only, then guilty as charged - I don't train any ground fighting system.

[BPWT..]

Alan, what the hell! I am not disagreeing with what you just wrote... you just explained why you need to cover. I am in agreement. I even explained why this problem solving is needed and will happen.

If you read (and understood what I actually wrote), I am talking about why in the 'light sparring clip' your guys are covering BEFORE THERE ARE ANY PUNCHES THROWN.

I have no problem with your instructional clip.

I think I've been really clear. Are you simply reading fast and not understanding? Because you are not getting what I, and also JPinAZ was saying. :confused:

[BPWT..]

So please grow up and understand wing chun is not a computer game or a black and white result

Please stop with the silly insults and try to read what I am actually writing. For God's sake, I am even putting emphasis (highlights or italics) on words like before and during, so that there can't be any confusion.

[LFJ]

@BPWT - I think PB is in Budapest right now. ;) http://www.vingtsun.hu/

[tc101]

Alan, what the hell! I am not disagreeing with what you just wrote... you just explained why you need to cover. I am in agreement. I even explained why this problem solving is needed and will happen.

If you read (and understood what I actually wrote), I am talking about why in the 'light sparring clip' your guys are covering BEFORE THERE ARE ANY PUNCHES THROWN.

I have no problem with your instructional clip.

I think I've been really clear. Are you simply reading fast and not understanding? Because you are not getting what I, and also JPinAZ was saying. :confused:

He has explained but you are not hearing what he is saying. Let me ask you in your wing chun sparring do you try to cut off or jeet or preempt what your opponent is trying to do or are you solely reactive and responding only after he does something?

[BPWT..]

@BPWT - I think PB is in Budapest right now. ;) http://www.vingtsun.hu/

Cool! ;) I wonder if PB visits often. Will have to try and look into it.

[BPWT..]

He has explained but you are not hearing what he is saying.

I looked back, but I can't see where he answered this question about assuming a cover position in favour of the alternative... before receiving punches.



Let me ask you in your wing chun sparring do you try to cut off or jeet or preempt what your opponent is trying to do

Of course.



...or are you solely reactive and responding only after he does something?

No, not solely reactive - a preemptive motion is of course not truly reactive in that sense, I agree.

But why would a person use a defensive covering position in a preemptive way? You cover... to, well... cover. The cover is in reaction to something.
Why would you cover against something that has not happened. It's like saying there is a reaction to no action.

E.g. During a live football/soccer match, a goal keeper doesn't stand in an alert, ready position when his team have the ball at the other end of the pitch and are themselves trying to score.

[tc101]

If fighting from a wing chun perspective using wing chun principles, and aiming towards a goal of fighting with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, then that is simple how it's done. Has nothing to do with how I 'think' things should work - I speak from my own understanding of wing chun concept/princple based on my own experience. Of course I don't get this simply from standing around alone in my house in front of a camera theorizing and droning on for hours on end as some others here seem to do - I prove it out during my own personal training sessions each and every week. You assuming otherwise just makes you look like, well, an a55.


I am not assuming anything but you are in assuming things should work a certain way and this was expressed in your comments and I was saying that it is not the same for everyone. How can you possibly know what is so called maximum effectiveness or how to achieve it? Are you able to do it?

The wing chun principles are not only guides you use to help you find out how to make things work for yourself. That will always be individual and level dependent.

On this forum disagreement seems to lead to name calling.



Alan and his guys can operate and interpret wing chun concepts however they want. If they chose to start from a recovery timeframe guard, that's their choice and no skin off my nose. I used to box, and back then I held similar guards as they do now. And my personal experience tells me, that if I want to apply wing chun bia jong & jeet kiu concepts/strategies, that old closed off guard doesn't really support that. End of story.

That's right you are free to use the art how you want just as they are and anyone is. I was explaining that just because you see things differently does not make them wrong or them right since in much of this there is no wrong or right since so much of it is individual. The bottom line are they making it work?

What I do not understand is why people who cannot show that they are making what they do work and in many cases are not even trying think they can argue how they know better than someone who could beat them silly. It would be like me telling a pro boxer he's just doing things all wrong.

[BPWT..]

Or to put it another way, as JPinAZ did, why would someone use a BT emergency action if there was no emergency and they weren't in a bad/difficult position in the first place.

I think someone from the WSL line once said that BT is teaching you how to deal with things once they've gone wrong. So in that sense, you wouldn't want to put yourself in that position.

[chris bougeard]

BPWT,
Your claims of sparring don't mesh with the questions you keep asking. Show us your sparring, then we can gauge what your level of skill is based on what we see. Until you do this you can't expect people who are successfully applying their system in pro MMA environments to take your views seriously. Again, I believe actions speak louder than words and you won't be so vocal when we critique your performance.

And before you say "but YOU don't fight in MMA, no I don't, but I certainly have sparred semi-pro and pro MMA guys, and did fine.

[Alan Orr]

Alan, what the hell! I am not disagreeing with what you just wrote... you just explained why you need to cover. I am in agreement. I even explained why this problem solving is needed and will happen.

If you read (and understood what I actually wrote), I am talking about why in the 'light sparring clip' your guys are covering BEFORE THERE ARE ANY PUNCHES THROWN.

I have no problem with your instructional clip.

I think I've been really clear. Are you simply reading fast and not understanding? Because you are not getting what I, and also JPinAZ was saying. :confused:

Maybe it's to do with sparing and fighting means that you can tell when you would be in a postion that would require you to cover. I'm not reading all the posts as I have limited time to waste

[Alan Orr]

Or to put it another way, as JPinAZ did, why would someone use a BT emergency action if there was no emergency and they weren't in a bad/difficult position in the first place.

I think someone from the WSL line once said that BT is teaching you how to deal with things once they've gone wrong. So in that sense, you wouldn't want to put yourself in that position.

If only life was so simple

I can tell you sparring with any of my guys you need a plan b lol

[tc101]

No, not solely reactive - a preemptive motion is of course not truly reactive in that sense, I agree.

But why would a person use a defensive covering position in a preemptive way? You cover... to, well... cover. The cover is in reaction to something.
Why would you cover against something that has not happened. It's like saying there is a reaction to no action.

E.g. During a live football/soccer match, a goal keeper doesn't stand in an alert, ready position when his team have the ball at the other end of the pitch and are themselves trying to score.

Preemptive means I do something before I need to react to what you are doing. I cover the opening or guard it then I have acted before your swing.

Here's what you are doing you are looking at this from some intellectual point of view and they are looking at it from a realistic point of view or a view based on experience. It is like asking a boxer why he lowers his hands in sparring and does not keep them in guard as that makes no sense because of this and that. He will tell you he does it because he has found from his training and from sparring and fighting that what he is doing works best for him.

You need to realize there is no right or best way in much of this. The test for what is right or best for you is called sparring.

[tc101]

Or to put it another way, as JPinAZ did, why would someone use a BT emergency action if there was no emergency and they weren't in a bad/difficult position in the first place.

I think someone from the WSL line once said that BT is teaching you how to deal with things once they've gone wrong. So in that sense, you wouldn't want to put yourself in that position.

You and J call this an emergency action as though there is some rule telling you you should or shouldn't do this or that.

[BPWT..]

Maybe it's to do with sparing and fighting means that you can tell when you would be in a postion that would require you to cover.

If I understand you (your writing is not always that easy to understand, forgive me for saying it), you are saying you cover against punches before they come because you know they will come, and you would rather take a defensive position (hands by head) rather than a more proactive position.

I still do see why you would choose the first over the latter as a 'starting point.'


I'm not reading all the posts as I have limited time to waste

Okay, but it's pretty hard to have a conversation with someone if they are not aware of what's been said.

[tc101]

I still do see why you would choose the first over the latter as a 'starting point.'


Because they have found through sparring and fighting that it works better for them.

[BPWT..]

Preemptive means I do something before I need to react to what you are doing. I cover the opening or guard it then I have acted before your swing.

I am saying that in the scenario you give, you are taking a defensive action to deal with something that has not yet occurred - so I am asking why take that strategy when another would serve the same purpose but also put you in a better position to initiate an attack pre-emptively too? Remember, at the point we're talking about, nothing has yet happened.

In both cases, the guard is not static - it doesn't remain fixed - but the defensive method in question has more limitations. E.g. with both hands by your head your arms are compressed, they are there to cover and protect only, and they have been placed at the furtherest distance from their target.

Of course, it works as a defence - but I'm asking why choose the purely defensive method without having had a reaction that requires it.

My question is about our use of the system before and after an exchange starts.

So Alan's use of the covering position when in close and the when the punches are flying makes perfect sense to me, and the way he uses it is the way we'd use it too (in LTWT). But that's because the punches are already coming.

[BPWT..]

Hi BPWT
SiFu Duncan Leung wing chun heavily emphasizes the covering aspect. If you own any of his tapes or have a chance to visit one of his schools it may help illuminate this topic for you.
As for your goal keeper example, you answered your own question.

I agree - but I always thought Duncan Leung's emphasis was on covering on entering. No?

I don't know what you mean regarding the goal keeper :) Do you mean he should keep a ready position to guard the goal as though it was being attacked, even if the ball is at the other end of the pitch?


Not all Wing Chun lineages view the 3rd form the same way. I.E. as an 'emergency only' form.

Yes, my lineage also doesn't see the 3rd form purely this way. I was just giving it as an example as some of the motions can be seen that way, and I think LFJ had earlier made reference to it related to covering.

[BPWT..]

BPWT, Your claims of sparring don't mesh with the questions you keep asking.

:confused: They come from sparring. :confused:



Show us your sparring, then we can gauge what your level of skill is based on what we see.

I've already told you (third time now) that the people I spar with have no interest in recording themselves - and that I too couldn't care less about doing so either. I don't care, also, if you think I have good skill or no skill. I am asking a question about what you do - and you seem to not want to answer it.



Until you do this you can't expect people who are successfully applying their system in pro MMA environments to take your views seriously.

I don't care if you or Alan take my views seriously. You can disagree with them all day long. I am asking you to explain to me why you do what you do. (specifically in relation to why your guys keep their hands in a covering position - in the sparring clip - when they have no stimuli to require it, and, IMO, Wing Chun has another alternative).

If there's a good reason, that's great - I'm just asking what it is, for f*ck's sake.

Not asking you to give me everyone's win/loss record - I am sure Alan's guys train hard and have success. I am trying to understand what is behind what they do.

You keep posting, but keep failing to answer the question I asked. Your guys might have a 1,000 win/0 loss record - great - you are still not answering the question I asked. If you don't want to, fine... but then why are you still posting responses to me. :confused:

Are you willing to answer this question in relation to the 'before' and 'after', or not?

[BPWT..]

Yes and no; it (the idea of covering) is ideally done throughout...whether entering, angling, backing up, moving sideways, moving in triangle horse, pak sau'ing, kicking, jamming, etc etc.

Gotcha. Okay, but does he advocate covering when the opponent hasn't done anything?



Kind of...but what I meant was: the fact that the goal keeper is there in the first place, regardless of what the other team players are doing. If he left his assigned post because he wanted to 'get in the game'...his quadrant of responsibility (the goal area) is now unmanned and open to exploitation.

Okay, I understand. So what I mean is, when the ball is at the other end of the pitch, you often see a goalie just standing by one of the posts. He's not in a 'ready' position, because the ball is so far away and in the hands of his team - so no immediate danger. If the other team get possession and come back down the pitch, attacking... then he gets his arse in gear.



Ok, cool.

:)

[tc101]

I am saying that in the scenario you give, you are taking a defensive action to deal with something that has not yet occurred - so I am asking why take that strategy when another would serve the same purpose but also put you in a better position to initiate an attack pre-emptively too? Remember, at the point we're talking about, nothing has yet happened.

In both cases, the guard is not static - it doesn't remain fixed - but the defensive method in question has more limitations. E.g. with both hands by your head your arms are compressed, they are there to cover and protect only, and they have been placed at the furtherest distance from their target.

Of course, it works as a defence - but I'm asking why choose the purely defensive method without having had a reaction that requires it.

My question is about our use of the system before and after an exchange starts.

So Alan's use of the covering position when in close and the when the punches are flying makes perfect sense to me, and the way he uses it is the way we'd use it too (in LTWT). But that's because the punches are already coming.

Let me begin by pointing out that what they do works better for them than what you are doing works for you. That is unless you are fighting and beating pro fighters. Start from THAT premise. That is where they are coming from.

They have found through their sparring and fighting that this is what works best for them. Do you not get that? Now you can argue til the cows come home that you do not see why this is the case but it is a fact proved by their record. It works. Their perspective as fighters is if you think something else works or works better prove it by fighting. You don't prove what works better through verbal argument.

What they point out is no one is proving it. Yes yes yes everyone has opinions and thinks they know how things should work but no one is showing any body proving that their views even work.

[BPWT..]

They have found through their sparring and fighting that this is what works best for them. Do you not get that?

Yes. I get that. (you will not find a single post from me that suggests otherwise)

I am asking 'why' they found it works best for them (one alternative over another - as with the before and after of the covering position), and then I am asking them 'how that fits into their CSL Wing Chun' and I am also asking 'where' those methods can be found in YKS, HC Wing Chun, etc, as their CSL system comes from Robert Chu, and that is his WCK background.

Is that really too hard to understand?

This has nothing to do with their ability to win fights. After all, people win fights with Boxing, and Muay Thai, etc. Not about my Wing Tsun is better than your CSL Wing Chun.

So need need for people to insult with talk of 'low level', 'Walking Dead', 'being childish', etc. No need for this to be a ****ing match. No need for Alan or Chris to get all worked up. They are secure in the knowledge that they do well in MMA events, so no need for them to get all offended by me (someone who doesn't compete).

I have some questions. They can answer them politely, take the time to read what is being written, or they can choose to not do so... but then it makes no sense for them to keep replying to me. :rolleyes:

[BPWT..]

Yes. Again, it is their way of being preemptive. Their wing chun preemptively places the appropriate hand/shape/tool in the space(s) where it is likely going to be the next area the adversary would attack. Nothing is 100%...but that is their approach. The part that may be somewhat confusing to some is that the 'cover' is/can be an attack if/as needed by the tactical situation.

That's interesting. Would you say their preemptive hand/shape/tool includes the position we see from Alan's guys in the light sparring video? (hands up by the side of the head)

If so, it would be a good example. What I've seen of Duncan Leung, his covering shapes look like Bong and Wu, or Man and Wu, etc, so typically Wing Chun shapes, as it were, with 'hands closer to target', but if you've seen something else/different - that's interesting and would be good to see too.

[chris bougeard]

BPWT, calm down with the expletives, no need to lose your rag.

I cannot believe you are so fixated about this cover idea. I'm sick of giving you explanations when you give nothing back other than passive aggressive comments.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't see lots of people backing your views, quite the contrary. You see sparring as just techniques , strategy and tactics is something you don't seem to grasp.

Seeing as you are so fond of analogies let me share one with you.

Let's base it on ancient times when people fought using shields and spears. If I carry a shield on my back and know I am going to be attacking archers who for sure are going to be shooting at me, am I going to advance towards them keeping my shield on my back? Of course not. I'm going to advance BEHIND that shield in the hope that it will absorb the incoming arrows until I can close where I can draw my sword.

You have seen this idea in application in some of the clips, it's a strategy, not a fixed in stone guard and it works. If I'm facing a better puncher and I want to close him down, going in behind a cover may stop me getting put on my backside. Do I do this myself? Yes if I feel it's necessary. Do I hold my hands in the position all the time? Of course not.

Now I have taken the time to explain from my standpoint the why of this "pre cover strategy", it works for me, my students and my brothers. If you don't like it well that's too bad. I would though be interested how you deal with this situation when you are sparring all these guys you claim. Maybe you can educate me, I'm always seeking to improve my skillset.

[Alan Orr]

If I understand you (your writing is not always that easy to understand, forgive me for saying it), you are saying you cover against punches before they come because you know they will come, and you would rather take a defensive position (hands by head) rather than a more proactive position.

I still do see why you would choose the first over the latter as a 'starting point.'



Okay, but it's pretty hard to have a conversation with someone if they are not aware of what's been said.

I never said that. We are proactive, that's why my fighter KOd his opponent


I don't need to read 20 pages of two people telling me my guys are not doing wing chun and asking questions which make no sense.

[Alan Orr]

Yes, if it fit the current situation and the need.



They typically cover large areas with things like Kwan sau, Gon sau, Bong/Wu etc yes.

I don't know anything about CSL wing chun; and not speaking at/for them...however if you are wondering about where those shapes come from, or how to reference them back to one of the forms...they come from 3rd form. I'm not saying that is where CSL WC gets it from or views it, just stating my very humble opinion. :)
I've never seen your lineages 3rd form but I'm guessing its there also. I think most folks struggle to connect these shapes because as you know, there are times in the forms where 1 hand/arm is used, sometimes 2 hands etc.


Yes correct many of these movements are in the forms and some are concepts from our wing chun principles.

[Alan Orr]

That's interesting. Would you say their preemptive hand/shape/tool includes the position we see from Alan's guys in the light sparring video? (hands up by the side of the head)

If so, it would be a good example. What I've seen of Duncan Leung, his covering shapes look like Bong and Wu, or Man and Wu, etc, so typically Wing Chun shapes, as it were, with 'hands closer to target', but if you've seen something else/different - that's interesting and would be good to see too.

I look forward to seeing your clips

[Alan Orr]

Yes. I get that. (you will not find a single post from me that suggests otherwise)

I am asking 'why' they found it works best for them (one alternative over another - as with the before and after of the covering position), and then I am asking them 'how that fits into their CSL Wing Chun' and I am also asking 'where' those methods can be found in YKS, HC Wing Chun, etc, as their CSL system comes from Robert Chu, and that is his WCK background.

Is that really too hard to understand?

This has nothing to do with their ability to win fights. After all, people win fights with Boxing, and Muay Thai, etc. Not about my Wing Tsun is better than your CSL Wing Chun.

So need need for people to insult with talk of 'low level', 'Walking Dead', 'being childish', etc. No need for this to be a ****ing match. No need for Alan or Chris to get all worked up. They are secure in the knowledge that they do well in MMA events, so no need for them to get all offended by me (someone who doesn't compete).

I have some questions. They can answer them politely, take the time to read what is being written, or they can choose to not do so... but then it makes no sense for them to keep replying to me. :rolleyes:


What works best for us it what works at that time. I'm not hear to teach you our system or answer every detail of our applications.

The main points of it looking or being wc have all been answered.

I post weekly clips on my you tube channel, so you can watch that if you wish

[BPWT..]

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong.

I have never said you or Alan are wrong. I have simply asked you 'why'. It's like talking to a brick wall. You keep repeating what you think I am saying.


You see sparring as just techniques , strategy and tactics is something you don't seem to grasp.

I think you must be playing with me here, as what I've been talking about is obviously about strategy and tactics. :rolleyes:

Regarding your analogy, you have quite spectacularly managed to miss the point for, perhaps, the 100th time.

Do you carry your shield in front of you before those archers are in range? If your said archers have run out of arrows, do you still keep your shield in front of you. When you get close enough to use your sword, do you still use your shield as though you're still facing those archers from range?

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm talking about range, and timeframe, and relevance - this is not just about a technique or a motion or a position, but the idea/concept/strategy that's behind it all.

Look at it this way. If I was standing in front of you and not moving (and unable to move), and you were not moving (and unable to move), and we were not in punching range, would you throw a punch at me that you knew would not reach me? What would be the strategy behind trying to hit me if you knew you couldn't? Now imagine that you do have the ability to move forward, but I don't have the ability move; I am rooted to the spot. Then you can use a strategy to attack and I will need to use a strategy to deal with that - I will need to employ a method to deal with something that 'is' happening. Range and timeframes have changed.

The archers, as it were, are now in range and the arrow is let loose.

Alan's instructional clip clearly shows a strategy of using covering when it is needed. In the light sparring clip, however, the fighter was using covering as a position to deal with something that had not yet occurred. It doesn't really matter I suppose, he can keep any type of guard he likes - but I asked why he would choose to use that rather than do something that allows him to at least have the option of using his 'sword' (mixing in your analogy)?


If I'm facing a better puncher and I want to close him down, going in behind a cover may stop me getting put on my backside.

Exactly. "Going in". Do you see what I am saying, here? Distance (range) and timeframe.


Now I have taken the time to explain from my standpoint the why of this "pre cover strategy", it works for me, my students and my brothers. If you don't like it well that's too bad.

You just gave an example of a "going in" approach and then later called it a "pre-cover strategy". It makes no sense at all. "Pre" and "Going In" are two different time frames. We are talking here about "before" and "after".

Like I said, I think you are quite deliberately playing around here. No one can mix up things this much and not be doing it on purpose to wind someone up. You are kinda winning, as I find this really unproductive. Probably this will be it from me on this thread, as I think you're not really here to talk and share.


I would though be interested how you deal with this situation when you are sparring all these guys you claim. Maybe you can educate me, I'm always seeking to improve my skillset.

"... when you are sparring all these guys you claim."

Nice. Set the tone by asking for me to explain something from my perspective and in the same breath insinuate that you don't think it is an honest discussion because you're assuming that I am lying to you. You're really something. :(

Regardless...

When not facing an incoming attack, I use a guard that is - at the least - an approximation of Man Sau and Wu Sau. Why? :). Because the way I have learned, we want to start (if possible) from a position that offers us an initial line of protection that keeps the center line in mind, and also keeps the option of attacking in mind. Two layers - man sau's hand to elbow, and wu sau's hand to body, plus a least a basic covering of the gates - but most importantly keeping my hands in a potential position to attack and/or meet an attack, and in accordance with our system's use/position of the elbows (which of course is vital for us in both attacking/defending).

I say again... this is from a start position. As soon as I initiate an attack or if one comes to me, then of course the start position changes to something else (no one holds a guard position regardless of what is happening). But whether I attack first or I need to receive, I want the initial position of the arms to be placed such that I can use our system's ideas and methods for striking, intercepting and, if there is the opportunity, controlling.

I say "receiving" as from the initial start position (guard) I am talking about, I have the option to receive. (Loi Lau) I have asked you these continuing questions on this thread because from the cover position I saw in the sparring clip, the fighter can (IMO) only receive by taking the strike on the gloves, and his arms are compressed. To my way of thinking, that is not optimal, so I ask you questions to try and understand why your system would use what appears to me to be a more Western boxing method of covering to absorb a strike. This makes sense, for the boxer, as they are not looking to "receive" how we would in Wing Chun (in my opinion, of course).

Once there's been a clash, the distance has been shortened and we see a barrage of strikes, then I often find myself using the covering that Alan showed in the 'instructional clip'. This makes sense to me and is now relevant, as we are then not at a "before" timeframe and at some distance, but instead we are at the "during" timeframe and we're closer. We can see more compressed arms because our body is closer to the opponent's body. In short, we arrive at this point but we don't want to start from it.

This is what I try to apply when sparring with fellow WT guys, or people who have had some training in MT, Karate and boxing. I'm not claiming I can always make it work - its a learning experience - and I don't make the claim I do this with Pro fighters (I don't). But I try to make sure that the body motions and methods I use are supported by the concepts and the strategies of the system. The most important being Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jit Cheung.

So it is funny when people here say that I am looking at things from a technique point of view. The concepts and strategies go hand in hand with the body method, IMO.

Take it or leave it, believe it or not. I really don't care. I'm simply asking you guys why you do things the way you do them. Feel free to respond by saying that all of the above is BS, and that I am low level and a cast member of an AMC TV series. :rolleyes:

[BPWT..]

I don't need to read 20 pages of two people telling me my guys are not doing wing chun and asking questions which make no sense.

Like I said to your student: like talking to a brick wall.

[chris bougeard]

You are incredibly patronising for someone who has shown no evidence whatsoever of any skill in fighting/sparring. I knew you would try to find holes in whatever I would say. I give a simple analogy then you over analyse trying to ensure you always "come out on top". I've been nice, I gave you some feedback and you choose to be insulting. It's no wonder wing chun is laughed at when there are so many guys like you who just want to split hairs and over analyse what other people are doing, when there own house is hardly in order.

[BPWT..]

You are incredibly patronising for someone who has shown no evidence whatsoever of any skill in fighting/sparring. I knew you would try to find holes in whatever I would say. I give a simple analogy then you over analyse trying to ensure you always "come out on top". I've been nice, I gave you some feedback and you choose to be insulting. It's no wonder wing chun is laughed at when there are so many guys like you who just want to split hairs and over analyse what other people are doing, when there own house is hardly in order.

This is why I am bowing out of this thread, Chris. Your response above is all you can offer in reply to me actually taking the time to explain to you what I mean. :rolleyes:

[tc101]

I have never said you or Alan are wrong. I have simply asked you 'why'. It's like talking to a brick wall. You keep repeating what you think I am saying.

Regardless...

When not facing an incoming attack, I use a guard that is - at the least - an approximation of Man Sau and Wu Sau. Why? :). Because the way I have learned, we want to start (if possible) from a position that offers us an initial line of protection that keeps the center line in mind, and also keeps the option of attacking in mind. Two layers - man sau's hand to elbow, and wu sau's hand to body, plus a least a basic covering of the gates - but most importantly keeping my hands in a potential position to attack and/or meet an attack, and in accordance with our system's use/position of the elbows (which of course is vital for us in both attacking/defending).

I say again... this is from a start position. As soon as I initiate an attack or if one comes to me, then of course the start position changes to something else (no one holds a guard position regardless of what is happening). But whether I attack first or I need to receive, I want the initial position of the arms to be placed such that I can use our system's ideas and methods for striking, intercepting and, if there is the opportunity, controlling.

I say "receiving" as from the initial start position (guard) I am talking about, I have the option to receive. (Loi Lau) I have asked you these continuing questions on this thread because from the cover position I saw in the sparring clip, the fighter can (IMO) only receive by taking the strike on the gloves, and his arms are compressed. To my way of thinking, that is not optimal, so I ask you questions to try and understand why your system would use what appears to me to be a more Western boxing method of covering to absorb a strike. This makes sense, for the boxer, as they are not looking to "receive" how we would in Wing Chun (in my opinion, of course).

Once there's been a clash, the distance has been shortened and we see a barrage of strikes, then I often find myself using the covering that Alan showed in the 'instructional clip'. This makes sense to me and is now relevant, as we are then not at a "before" timeframe and at some distance, but instead we are at the "during" timeframe and we're closer. We can see more compressed arms because our body is closer to the opponent's body. In short, we arrive at this point but we don't want to start from it.

This is what I try to apply when sparring with fellow WT guys, or people who have had some training in MT, Karate and boxing. I'm not claiming I can always make it work - its a learning experience - and I don't make the claim I do this with Pro fighters (I don't). But I try to make sure that the body motions and methods I use are supported by the concepts and the strategies of the system. The most important being Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jit Cheung.

So it is funny when people here say that I am looking at things from a technique point of view. The concepts and strategies go hand in hand with the body method, IMO.

Take it or leave it, believe it or not. I really don't care. I'm simply asking you guys why you do things the way you do them. Feel free to respond by saying that all of the above is BS, and that I am low level and a cast member of an AMC TV series. :rolleyes:

All of that shows that you have the wing chun model down solid. Good for you. Seriously. But what if you went to a boxing gym and found that even after months of trying you could not really make things work like that? The way you describe the model sounds great and everything but that through sparring and fighting you find that things really do not work like that? Because quite honestly that is what you would find.

Here's the problem people can tell you things really don't work like you think they will but no amount of argument or explanation will change your mind. The only thing that can is experience. You need to experience it first hand. You can't explain or prove what works and what doesn't through words. As we say in boxing that argument happens in the ring. This is why CB asked about your sparring. Are you making how you think things should work really work against boxers?

You say you hit a wall with the Orr team but they have answered your question just it is not the answer you want to hear. Their answer is they do what they do because they have found through sparring and fighting what works best for them. Why do they use that guard, why do they use that body structure, why do they do this or that? All because they found those things work better for them. What more do you need?

In your questions you want to argue how you think things should work things like why cover before your partner throws a hook? The answer is because they found it worked better to do it that way. This is no surprise since many many many fighters have found the same to be true. It's almost universal. Honestly the only people who don't get it are people who don't spend much time with someone trying to punch them solidly in the head.

[BPWT..]

tc101,

The guys I spar with - they "are all trying to punch me in the head" when we spar. And the Muay Thai guy adds to the mix by trying (succeeding) to pulverise my legs. :) We train privately, but sure - I could head to a boxing gym... and I'm sure I'd have difficulties there. I spar purely to add some more live training to my regular Wing Tsun training. It is what it is. I make slow improvements doing what I do. I'm happy with that. If I wanted quicker improvements, I'd go train MMA like Alan's guys. Like I said - different goals.

If I take a pounding during the sparring sessions, you might say, "Well, that's because your method doesn't work under real pressure." But if I'm doing quite well, what then? "Well, your training partners aren't pro fighters." None of that means much to me, to tell you the truth. The only question I ask myself is whether I can see improvements in what I am doing, the way I am doing it.

Alan and his guys can use any method they like in the ring. If it works for them, that's great. If they came to the conclusion that Wing Chun's kicking methods just didn't work well for them, for example, and so they decided to train Muay Thai methods instead - good for them. They can still call it Wing CSL, I guess. Their system.

I asked "why do you do something in a particular way, how does that fit with your Wing Chun's concepts and methods, and which line/lineage of Wing Chun from Robert Chu does that come from?"

If they say that they do what they do because it works in the ring, okay. I don't think it really answers my questions, and so I don't know how to view what they do and understand how it is Wing Chun, but okay... I don't really care enough to continue asking beyond 26 pages.

The funny thing, is that even though I don't train in the PBVT method, if I watch Sean's sparring clips I don't need to ask these questions. Sean's guys are not competing in the way that Alan's are, but still... everything is pretty clear and their sparring looks like the methods their line teaches transfer well.

I'll happily watch Alan's instructional clips, but I've lost all interest in trying to better understand how they utilise their system. Alan's kinda petty with the school-boy insults. It was certainly an eye-opener talking to the man. :roll eyes:

[Wayfaring]

Wow BPWT is getting all twisted up over where you hold your hands before the fight initiates.

Where do Major League Baseball players hold their hands before swinging the bat? Thankfully they calculate batting averages on what happens in the strike zone.

[BPWT..]

What would a batting average be like if the player held the bat in their mouth?

Start the pool game with a bad break?

Start your long jump off the wrong foot?

Treat the patient with the wrong drug?

:D Symptoms, Wayfaring. "Start as you mean to go on."

Okay, I promise - end of the thread for me... despite the allure. I'm like a zombie drawn to a bunch of forum posters stuck in a ditch.

[Alan Orr]

What would a batting average be like if the player held the bat in their mouth?

Start the pool game with a bad break?

Start your long jump off the wrong foot?

Treat the patient with the wrong drug?

:D Symptoms, Wayfaring. "Start as you mean to go on."

Okay, I promise - end of the thread for me... despite the allure. I'm like a zombie drawn to a bunch of forum posters stuck in a ditch.


I think you may find that you are the one stuck lol

Everyone else seems quite normal

[Wayfaring]

What would a batting average be like if the player held the bat in their mouth?

Start the pool game with a bad break?

Start your long jump off the wrong foot?

Treat the patient with the wrong drug?

:D Symptoms, Wayfaring. "Start as you mean to go on."

Okay, I promise - end of the thread for me... despite the allure. I'm like a zombie drawn to a bunch of forum posters stuck in a ditch.

Then you would be living in an Alanis Morissette song. :D

[Alan Orr]

tc101,

The guys I spar with - they "are all trying to punch me in the head" when we spar. And the Muay Thai guy adds to the mix by trying (succeeding) to pulverise my legs. :) We train privately, but sure - I could head to a boxing gym... and I'm sure I'd have difficulties there. I spar purely to add some more live training to my regular Wing Tsun training. It is what it is. I make slow improvements doing what I do. I'm happy with that. If I wanted quicker improvements, I'd go train MMA like Alan's guys. Like I said - different goals.

If I take a pounding during the sparring sessions, you might say, "Well, that's because your method doesn't work under real pressure." But if I'm doing quite well, what then? "Well, your training partners aren't pro fighters." None of that means much to me, to tell you the truth. The only question I ask myself is whether I can see improvements in what I am doing, the way I am doing it.

Alan and his guys can use any method they like in the ring. If it works for them, that's great. If they came to the conclusion that Wing Chun's kicking methods just didn't work well for them, for example, and so they decided to train Muay Thai methods instead - good for them. They can still call it Wing CSL, I guess. Their system.

I asked "why do you do something in a particular way, how does that fit with your Wing Chun's concepts and methods, and which line/lineage of Wing Chun from Robert Chu does that come from?"

If they say that they do what they do because it works in the ring, okay. I don't think it really answers my questions, and so I don't know how to view what they do and understand how it is Wing Chun, but okay... I don't really care enough to continue asking beyond 26 pages.

The funny thing, is that even though I don't train in the PBVT method, if I watch Sean's sparring clips I don't need to ask these questions. Sean's guys are not competing in the way that Alan's are, but still... everything is pretty clear and their sparring looks like the methods their line teaches transfer well.

I'll happily watch Alan's instructional clips, but I've lost all interest in trying to better understand how they utilise their system. Alan's kinda petty with the school-boy insults. It was certainly an eye-opener talking to the man. :roll eyes:


School boy? Says the guy with no name. Lol

In truth I don't have time to answer and explain each second of my fighters matches. It's not how fighting works anyway. Also we not sharing all our reasons on a forum, as my guys still fight and I don't choose to give away all our methods. I'm happy to post clips and share. But it's up to me what I show and what I don't. If you are happy with your style then just get on with it. If you want question our wing chun then make the effort and meet us rather that waste so much time on someone's hand positioning.

[LFJ]

Sean's guys are not competing in the way that Alan's are, but still... everything is pretty clear and their sparring looks like the methods their line teaches transfer well.

Same goes for the Iron Wolves. You just don't understand their method and how it should transfer. They only train CSLWC for their standup and they're knocking people out in pro fights. I'd say it's transferring extremely well!


Cool! ;) I wonder if PB visits often. Will have to try and look into it.

Not sure, but it's a PBVT representative school in your current city. You should definitely drop in and have them show you firsthand how the system works. Opportunity is right across the street! ;)

[tc101]

tc101,

The guys I spar with - they "are all trying to punch me in the head" when we spar. And the Muay Thai guy adds to the mix by trying (succeeding) to pulverise my legs. :) We train privately, but sure - I could head to a boxing gym... and I'm sure I'd have difficulties there. I spar purely to add some more live training to my regular Wing Tsun training. It is what it is. I make slow improvements doing what I do. I'm happy with that. If I wanted quicker improvements, I'd go train MMA like Alan's guys. Like I said - different goals.


I do not know who the guys you spar with are. The thing about sparring is that how you do it and most importantly who you do it with makes all the difference. Sparring under the guidance of a good fight trainer is a whole different level like the difference in doing some exercises on your own versus using a personal fitness trainer.

When ever I hear guys saying I will do this or that in fighting I find it lol funny. I do not mean this as condescending but I have learned from over 20 years in a boxing gym and from my wing chun training also that what will work for you depends heavily on what your opponent can do, how good he is at doing it and what he is doing at the moment. There is no such thing as a formula or fixed approach. Your strategy and tactics depend for the most part on your opponent since they have to deal with the unique problems that individual is giving you. You often go in with plan A quickly move to plan B then start improvising lol.

From what I have seen many many many people in wing chun only spar a bit and with their wing chun partners so they only see very very very very limited things in sparring. I pointed this out to Kev. His ideas sound great if you face other PB guys locked into a specific way of doing things but what when you face someone not doing that? Like Obasi?

For example this stuff about the guard. If I am only facing guys who throw elbow down straight punches while facing me squarely and never feint and so forth I might be able to use a mun wu type guard successfully. The choice of guard is a TACTICAL CHOICE and it's success will depend on what my opponent is doing. The point is there is no universal right or best way even if the model teaches you that. You have to do those things make those tactical choices that work against that particular opponent and with what he is doing. That is fighting. You learn to do that only through experience.



If I take a pounding during the sparring sessions, you might say, "Well, that's because your method doesn't work under real pressure." But if I'm doing quite well, what then? "Well, your training partners aren't pro fighters." None of that means much to me, to tell you the truth. The only question I ask myself is whether I can see improvements in what I am doing, the way I am doing it.

Alan and his guys can use any method they like in the ring. If it works for them, that's great. If they came to the conclusion that Wing Chun's kicking methods just didn't work well for them, for example, and so they decided to train Muay Thai methods instead - good for them. They can still call it Wing CSL, I guess. Their system.


Their kicking method like everything else is wing chun based. You keep looking at things from the model pov and think because it does not look like the model it is not wing chun. That is because you believe that your fighting should look like the model and since it doesn't they are not using wing chun. I keep trying to tell you that the model is a finger not the moon. You do not see that wing chun in application that is in fighting most often will not look like the model. It's like you keep saying yes but their forehand does not look like how the book teaches to do a forehand. I keep telling you that when you really play tennis you will find that it rarely looks like it does in the book. The model is to help you learn how to kick not to limit or restrict you. Learn the principle but do not be bound by the principle. Who said that?



I asked "why do you do something in a particular way, how does that fit with your Wing Chun's concepts and methods, and which line/lineage of Wing Chun from Robert Chu does that come from?"

If they say that they do what they do because it works in the ring, okay. I don't think it really answers my questions, and so I don't know how to view what they do and understand how it is Wing Chun, but okay... I don't really care enough to continue asking beyond 26 pages.


Yes yes you keep asking that question but what you do not get is things don't work like that. You learn the strategies tactics skills concepts of the art but in fighting you adapt them to your opponent. So when you ask why did you do it that way the answer is because it works against that particular guy.



The funny thing, is that even though I don't train in the PBVT method, if I watch Sean's sparring clips I don't need to ask these questions. Sean's guys are not competing in the way that Alan's are, but still... everything is pretty clear and their sparring looks like the methods their line teaches transfer well.

I'll happily watch Alan's instructional clips, but I've lost all interest in trying to better understand how they utilise their system. Alan's kinda petty with the school-boy insults. It was certainly an eye-opener talking to the man. :roll eyes:

It goes back to what I said in my first paragraph.

[KPM]

OK. At risk of being accused of driving on a pointless argument, or having an agenda, or whatever....I just had to respond to this.



School boy? Says the guy with no name. Lol

.

Yes Alan, "school boy" is pretty appropriate. You should take a good hard look in the mirror. I'm a nobody. You are a public face of Wing Chun. Go back and read through this thread. I have been very surprised by your behavior. When faced with people asking very polite and respectful questions (whether you liked the questions or not is irrelevant) you responded by saying they were "low level", "stupid", "the walking dead", "clueless".....and I'm sure I missed a couple of others. So yeah, "school boy" seems like a nice way to put it. And with behavior like that you wonder why BPWT is reluctant to give his name?

If a new potential student with no background in Wing Chun but some knowledge of boxing/MMA came to your school considering signing on and asking the very same questions, would you have responded like this?

As I pointed out to crazy Dave, it takes two sides to drive any discussion/argument. Responding like you have certainly doesn't help to end said discussion/argument. But for some reason the blame only gets pointed in one direction.

Hopefully this thread will now die a natural death.

[LFJ]

@KPM

Yeah. You guys totally came on here respectfully asking questions to understand their system... by arguing/telling them that what they do isn't Wing Chun!

You shouldn't expect Alan to happily provide free handouts detailing their system if you come on insulting it (saying "congrats but it's not Wing Chun" is an insult). His response was pretty natural and expected.

For some people, respect is reciprocal.

[Alan Orr]

@KPM

Yeah. You guys totally came on here respectfully asking questions to understand their system... by arguing/telling them that what they do isn't Wing Chun!

You shouldn't expect Alan to happily provide free handouts detailing their system if you come on insulting it (saying "congrats but it's not Wing Chun" is an insult). His response was pretty natural and expected.

For some people, respect is reciprocal.


Thank you ! True wisdom. You would think that was all common sense but it's not been the case as we know lol

[Alan Orr]

OK. At risk of being accused of driving on a pointless argument, or having an agenda, or whatever....I just had to respond to this.




Yes Alan, "school boy" is pretty appropriate. You should take a good hard look in the mirror. I'm a nobody. You are a public face of Wing Chun. Go back and read through this thread. I have been very surprised by your behavior. When faced with people asking very polite and respectful questions (whether you liked the questions or not is irrelevant) you responded by saying they were "low level", "stupid", "the walking dead", "clueless".....and I'm sure I missed a couple of others. So yeah, "school boy" seems like a nice way to put it. And with behavior like that you wonder why BPWT is reluctant to give his name?

If a new potential student with no background in Wing Chun but some knowledge of boxing/MMA came to your school considering signing on and asking the very same questions, would you have responded like this?

As I pointed out to crazy Dave, it takes two sides to drive any discussion/argument. Responding like you have certainly doesn't help to end said discussion/argument. But for some reason the blame only gets pointed in one direction.

Hopefully this thread will now die a natural death.


This is BS. As it's been said - telling my guys well done for winning fights even though it's not wing chun is being rude. Then going on and on about parts of the fight where no wc can be seen etc is again a low attack at the hard work of my team. Now you want to act like your the nice guy and I'm the one playing games. Lol keep going.

I have taking time to film and post videos, what have you guys addressing questions, what have you done?

Just more talk

If a new student came to my class? Are you saying your comments are due too you being a new student of wc? A new student I hope would come with an open mind and want to listen and learn.


When I talked about low levels of understanding I am talking about people who can not see or understand what we do. If you can't then yes the level must be a lower level to the basic standards I set my guys. Is that you ? I don't know. I'm talking about my general opinion.

Yes I have a lot of knowledge in the martial arts not just wing chun so I'm not just guessing. I have been around the block a few times.

Why not post clips to explain what you think would work better and would have made the fight more of a success that just a knockout.

[KPM]

Nice, thanks for the new moniker! From the first moment that I commented on this thread you've tried to tell me what I should think and what I saw as if I was too stupid and naive to form a conclusion for myself. You did your best to steer me towards your viewpoint

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, "crazy Dave" seems to be an appropriate moniker!

When you posted this video on the general forum, irregardless of how good you say your intentions were, you did it in hopes of gaining a consensus for your argument.

As I have already said (and now you are forcing me to repeat myself, so who is still instigating this argument?) I posted that clip without prejudice and in as positive a way as I could. I was truly curious if non-WCK people would just accept it out-right as Wing Chun, or whether they would ask some of the same questions we were asking. Then guys that had been following this thread chimed in and it became a "let's bash the Wing Chun guys" thread and then you jumped in and actually encouraged them! I was willing to accept the results which ever way they went. But now we'll never know because the Wing Chun bashers poisoned the whole thread.


Your correct in saying that it takes two to drive a discussion, but what you and BPWT are doing is nothing short of trolling, hoping Alan and his crew will back down so that you can feel triumphant in your argument.

That's total BS! Yes, there are two sides or two perspectives to any discussion or argument. Yet you felt the need to attack me alone and I wasn't even the one doing most of the posting. But that's beside the point. Let me summarize this whole thread from my perspective. Obviously most others haven't seen it this way. But at least try to see where I am coming from, and I think BPWT would agree. This is highly paraphrased of course. And the thread has meandered this way and that as threads like this tend to do. But this is my impression of this whole discussion. I ask everyone to at least consider this side of this whole weird thread.

Alan: Here are a couple of clips showing a great Wing Chun knockout and one showing Wing Chun sparring.

Walking Dead: Thanks! Great clips! Congrats to Josh! But I noticed that I don't see any obvious Wing Chun in those clips. It looks like the boxing that most MMA fighters are using. This seems to be Wing Chun adapted to MMA and not "straight up" Wing Chun.

Alan: Of course its Wing Chun. It hasn't been "adapted" to anything. You must be low level and clueless if you can't see it. Wing Chun fighting doesn't look like Wing Chun drills because under pressure things change. We train CSL Wing Chun and our fighting and sparring uses Wing Chun concepts, structure, and techniques.

Walking Dead: Ok. Its just that someone in a wide stance with their hands up in front of their face, their body inclined forward, chin tucked in, bobbing and weaving and using bouncing footwork looks more like boxing than Wing Chun. Can you explain how this is an expression of your Wing Chun concepts and structure?

Alan: No. Its Wing Chun because I say its Wing Chun. I don't have to explain anything. I have already explained by saying that we use CSL Wing Chun concepts, structure, and technique. If you can't see the Wing Chun in these clips, then you must be stupid and clueless. Applied under pressure Wing Chun is not going to look like it does in training.

Walking Dead: But what about those two recent clips showing Wing Chun sparring under pressure that still looked like Wing Chun and not boxing?

Alan: Those clips are irrelevant and I am ignoring them. What counts is whether YOU spar. If you don't think YOU could take on one of my fighters then you don't have the right to express an opinion or ask any questions.

Again....this is how I have seen this discussion from MY perspective. Just hoping people are willing to take a step back and actually consider what has really been said here.



Keith, you asked me what your agenda is, well frankly I think it is to come off to others that you are the smartest in the room. Got news for you, your not.

No, I don't think I'm the smartest in the room. And I haven't pretended to be clairvoyant and say that I know what someone else's intentions are either. If I have any agenda, it is to bring up a point or observation that I believe to be true and then ask questions to those that have a different viewpoint. I tend to keep at it until someone either convinces me that there viewpoint it valid or until its obvious that we can agree to disagree. If someone keeps coming back at me and telling me my viewpoint is "stupid" or that I'm "clueless", or that I'm "low level", well... that's not agreeing to disagree, and I'll going to keep coming back. Ok. Maybe that's a fault, maybe I should know when to give up. But if someone keeps telling me I'm wrong, but doesn't give me a convincing reason WHY I'm wrong, I tend to keep pushing own point. Don't know whether that qualifies as an "agenda" or not. If anything, I think I'm guilty of being stubborn and hard-headed! ;)


You know what? I still think those clips look more like Boxing than Wing Chun. That's the "obvious" part I kept referring to, but Alan called me "clueless." Alan said no, those clips are "straight up" Wing Chun, not Wing Chun adapted to a Boxing scenario. So we have been asking questions as to how CSL Wing Chun concepts are being expressed in those clips. And no, we haven't gotten very good answers. If anyone else thinks they have, then please explain to this stubborn clueless low-level idiot how the quite obvious western boxing elements we have seen in those clips are actually all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts.

So you can call me anything you want. You can accuse me of anything you want. You can say I have an "agenda" or that I am "spamming" or that I am "trolling." But that is the bottom-line for me. I still think Alan is doing great work, though I think a little less of him as a person now. But that's it! I'm out! I'm sure you guys will have more catchy comebacks though! ;)

[KPM]

I had left this conversation until YOU felt the need to drag me into it again.

Ah! You mean just like you dragged me back into it with your weird attack on me several pages back??? :rolleyes:



First of all your intentions are transparent, I'm not clairvoyant just intuitive, don't take my word for it ask some others what they believe your intentions were.

I just told you what my intentions were. Are you now calling me a liar?


I never called you stupid or clueless

Haven't you even been reading along Dave? I said it was Alan who called us stupid and clueless.

Simple fact is, you asked they answered.

Ok. Maybe I missed it. So I will repeat my request I wrote just above...... please explain to this stubborn clueless low-level idiot how the quite obvious western boxing elements we have seen in those clips are actually all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts. Can you do it Dave?


All of this started because you and BPWT have insinuated that Alan Orr is a liar.

What? :eek: Dave you really are crazy! We may have said we didn't see what he was saying or understand why he was calling things a certain way, but we certainly never said he was liar! So I would appreciate it if YOU didn't put words in MY mouth!

For the record, I'm not on anyone's side.

Really? You sure fooled me! :rolleyes:

I've already voiced my opinion on the subject. This conversation we've been having isn't about Wing Chun it's about ethics. These childish rants going back and forth,

You mean like the one you launched when you freaked out on me?

[Alan Orr]

Nice, thanks for the new moniker! From the first moment that I commented on this thread you've tried to tell me what I should think and what I saw as if I was too stupid and naive to form a conclusion for myself. You did your best to steer me towards your viewpoint

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, "crazy Dave" seems to be an appropriate moniker!

When you posted this video on the general forum, irregardless of how good you say your intentions were, you did it in hopes of gaining a consensus for your argument.

As I have already said (and now you are forcing me to repeat myself, so who is still instigating this argument?) I posted that clip without prejudice and in as positive a way as I could. I was truly curious if non-WCK people would just accept it out-right as Wing Chun, or whether they would ask some of the same questions we were asking. Then guys that had been following this thread chimed in and it became a "let's bash the Wing Chun guys" thread and then you jumped in and actually encouraged them! I was willing to accept the results which ever way they went. But now we'll never know because the Wing Chun bashers poisoned the whole thread.


Your correct in saying that it takes two to drive a discussion, but what you and BPWT are doing is nothing short of trolling, hoping Alan and his crew will back down so that you can feel triumphant in your argument.

That's total BS! Yes, there are two sides or two perspectives to any discussion or argument. Yet you felt the need to attack me alone and I wasn't even the one doing most of the posting. But that's beside the point. Let me summarize this whole thread from my perspective. Obviously most others haven't seen it this way. But at least try to see where I am coming from, and I think BPWT would agree. This is highly paraphrased of course. And the thread has meandered this way and that as threads like this tend to do. But this is my impression of this whole discussion. I ask everyone to at least consider this side of this whole weird thread.

Alan: Here are a couple of clips showing a great Wing Chun knockout and one showing Wing Chun sparring.

Walking Dead: Thanks! Great clips! Congrats to Josh! But I noticed that I don't see any obvious Wing Chun in those clips. It looks like the boxing that most MMA fighters are using. This seems to be Wing Chun adapted to MMA and not "straight up" Wing Chun.

Alan: Of course its Wing Chun. It hasn't been "adapted" to anything. You must be low level and clueless if you can't see it. Wing Chun fighting doesn't look like Wing Chun drills because under pressure things change. We train CSL Wing Chun and our fighting and sparring uses Wing Chun concepts, structure, and techniques.

Walking Dead: Ok. Its just that someone in a wide stance with their hands up in front of their face, their body inclined forward, chin tucked in, bobbing and weaving and using bouncing footwork looks more like boxing than Wing Chun. Can you explain how this is an expression of your Wing Chun concepts and structure?

Alan: No. Its Wing Chun because I say its Wing Chun. I don't have to explain anything. I have already explained by saying that we use CSL Wing Chun concepts, structure, and technique. If you can't see the Wing Chun in these clips, then you must be stupid and clueless. Applied under pressure Wing Chun is not going to look like it does in training.

Walking Dead: But what about those two recent clips showing Wing Chun sparring under pressure that still looked like Wing Chun and not boxing?

Alan: Those clips are irrelevant and I am ignoring them. What counts is whether YOU spar. If you don't think YOU could take on one of my fighters then you don't have the right to express an opinion or ask any questions.

Again....this is how I have seen this discussion from MY perspective. Just hoping people are willing to take a step back and actually consider what has really been said here.



Keith, you asked me what your agenda is, well frankly I think it is to come off to others that you are the smartest in the room. Got news for you, your not.

No, I don't think I'm the smartest in the room. And I haven't pretended to be clairvoyant and say that I know what someone else's intentions are either. If I have any agenda, it is to bring up a point or observation that I believe to be true and then ask questions to those that have a different viewpoint. I tend to keep at it until someone either convinces me that there viewpoint it valid or until its obvious that we can agree to disagree. If someone keeps coming back at me and telling me my viewpoint is "stupid" or that I'm "clueless", or that I'm "low level", well... that's not agreeing to disagree, and I'll going to keep coming back. Ok. Maybe that's a fault, maybe I should know when to give up. But if someone keeps telling me I'm wrong, but doesn't give me a convincing reason WHY I'm wrong, I tend to keep pushing own point. Don't know whether that qualifies as an "agenda" or not. If anything, I think I'm guilty of being stubborn and hard-headed! ;)


You know what? I still think those clips look more like Boxing than Wing Chun. That's the "obvious" part I kept referring to, but Alan called me "clueless." Alan said no, those clips are "straight up" Wing Chun, not Wing Chun adapted to a Boxing scenario. So we have been asking questions as to how CSL Wing Chun concepts are being expressed in those clips. And no, we haven't gotten very good answers. If anyone else thinks they have, then please explain to this stubborn clueless low-level idiot how the quite obvious western boxing elements we have seen in those clips are actually all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts.

So you can call me anything you want. You can accuse me of anything you want. You can say I have an "agenda" or that I am "spamming" or that I am "trolling." But that is the bottom-line for me. I still think Alan is doing great work, though I think a little less of him as a person now. But that's it! I'm out! I'm sure you guys will have more catchy comebacks though! ;)


Cherry picking comments and rewriting the 27 pages in one post is twisting things around.

The main point is and will always be that you can not accept that we use CSL wing chun in our fighting.

Straight up wing chun - what even is that ?? Drill wing chun, training wing chun?

No what you see in the fight is applied wing chun

You would think with the bad rep wing chun is gaining from the you tube rubbish you see, that you would be happy we stick to our wing chun as out art and stand up for wing chun as a martial art

[Alan Orr]

I had left this conversation until YOU felt the need to drag me into it again.




I have looked at it from your point of view. If you go back through the thread there are some points on which we agreed, but your constant rebuttal of every answer given you by Alan, his student and his supporters puts you in a bad light. If you don't think CSL Wing Chun is represented in the clip, fine, but who are you to tell the Sifu of the fighter that it is not CSL Wing Chun? Do you practice CSL Wing Chun? Alan Orr is taking offense because you and BPWT keep insulting him by insinuating that he does not do Wing Chun when time after time he has said that it is what CSL Wing Chun looks like under heavy pressure. Here is a simple question for you: Have you ever been in a REAL fight? I'm not talking about heavy sparring, I'm talking about a knock down drag out brawl where the individual is trying to do you serious harm? If so what were the results, win or lose is irrelevant, did your Wing Chun look like something out of the movies or was it something a little less romantic?




First of all your intentions are transparent, I'm not clairvoyant just intuitive, don't take my word for it ask some others what they believe your intentions were. I never called you stupid or clueless I only insinuated that your were being a douchebag for the way you were acting. As far as being wrong, in this case, on many points you are. You don't study CSL Wing Chun, they tried to provide answers as best they could, you persisted to the point of insulting their integrity which leads to my questioning of your intentions and agenda. Simple fact is, you asked they answered. If you didn't like or agree with the responses that's your prerogative no need to keep insisting that they provide you or BPWT with a more detailed explanation that is more in line with your understanding or personal philosophy. Accept what is given, agree or not and let it be.




And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, let others have theirs. In this case, Alan Orr and his crew. I believe they have tried to explain, maybe not in as much detail as some would like or in a manner that others can understand. This is their choice and no one has the right to try and coerce them to do otherwise. In actuality they don't have to explain anything to you or anyone else. You and BPWT act as if you are entitled to the methods of their art without putting anything in. All of this started because you and BPWT have insinuated that Alan Orr is a liar. You can re-butte that all you want but that's how I see it and I'm sure that is how many others including Alan Orr see it.

For the record, I'm not on anyone's side. I've already voiced my opinion on the subject. This conversation we've been having isn't about Wing Chun it's about ethics. These childish rants going back and forth, people trying to convince each other that their view is the only one. I understand that it is a discussion forum but at some point the ADULT in all of us needs to come out and speak the voice of reason.


Good balanced post

[PalmStriker]

Cherry picking comments and rewriting the 27 pages in one post is twisting things around.

The main point is and will always be that you can not accept that we use CSL wing chun in our fighting.

Straight up wing chun - what even is that ?? Drill wing chun, training wing chun?

No what you see in the fight is applied wing chun

You would think with the bad rep wing chun is gaining from the you tube rubbish you see, that you would be happy we stick to our wing chun as out art and stand up for wing chun as a martial art :D Applied WingChun? Yes you are correct, Sifu. If you were using applied Muay Thai in an MMA format there would be much less contention. Fact is, if you and your guys are absorbed in TCMA WingChun there will be a big difference in that application as opposed to Korean base or Okinawan base or Taiji base. * Your fighter caught his opponent off guard and he never was able to recoup, especially in the psychological. They will be paying more attention to that attack strategy in future bouts. (The Art of War). Keep up the good work! :) K.P. deGreenham

[Alan Orr]

:D Applied WingChun? Yes you are correct, Sifu. If you were using applied Muay Thai in an MMA format there would be much less contention. Fact is, if you and your guys are absorbed in TCMA WingChun there will be a big difference in that application as opposed to Korean base or Okinawan base or Taiji base. * Your fighter caught his opponent off guard and he never was able to recoup, especially in the psychological. They will be paying more attention to that attack strategy in future bouts. (The Art of War). Keep up the good work! :)

Many thanks

[KPM]

So now I'm a liar too? That's seems about par for this thread given everything else I've been called! :eek: And really...."heightened emotional state"??? Does anyone find that rather ironic besides me? :rolleyes:

[Alan Orr]

KPM Wrote:




At this point in the game, Yes I am.





Yeah I can, but I'm not going to. Your dogmatic approach to Wing Chun has given you blinders and won't allow you too see anything but the narrow view before you. Besides, you are in such a heightened state you wont listen to anyone or reason.





I'm crazy, that's rich coming from the guy that feels the need to twist things around and write several 1000 word dissertations about how the CSL people aren't doing their version of Wing Chun that it's "obviously" something else. You called Alan Orr out, he gave you his answer. You didn't agree with his answer and continued to tell him what his guy was doing in your opinion. Repeat for 20 some pages. In my book that's calling the man a liar. Obviously he and his supporters felt as if this was also the case as they have call you out on it.





Let me re-phrase that. As far as the discussion concerning the topic of this thread, no sides. As for whose side am I on concerning your childish, overly obsessed, unwilling to let things go, twist things around, cherry picking, poor me, why won't anyone listen to my whiny a$s attitude and behavior. I'm with Alan and the general consensus.





I never "freaked" out on you, I simply called you out. It's obvious that in your heightened emotional state that you couldn't handle it. I see all these long posts your typing up as nothing more than damage control for your image and a need for validation of your views to the point of obsession.

You still don't see what this has been all about? That's amazing, perhaps someone else can explain it to you because apparently being straight forward and pointing out the obvious isn't working.


Alan, with all do respect I am not your champion, you'll have to deal with this thick headed donkey of a man on your own concerning his points of argument. My suggestion to you is to ignore him and BPWT.


Keith, my only issue has been with your behavior not you opinion. Alan and his crew only lashed out at you and BPWT in retaliation. Here's a suggestion Keith. Submit a clip of yourself using your idea of Wing Chun in an unrehearsed fight, no silly Chi Sau stuff, but an actual fight.

My guess is that it won't happen because your afraid of receiving criticism. Criticism that you are more that willing to dish out but not receive.


That's why I liked your post. Balanced view. I don't need people to agree with me. People can have their own views and we can still all be friendly and not agree or agree. As you pointed out some don't listen to anything said, which is what causes the bad feeling.

[LFJ]

please explain to this stubborn clueless low-level idiot how the quite obvious western boxing elements we have seen in those clips are actually all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts.

Why not post the clip on a Western Boxing forum and see what they think? ;)

[KPM]

Why not post the clip on a Western Boxing forum and see what they think? ;)

You're kidding right? I posted it in-house on our own general forum and look at the reaction I got! ;)

[KPM]

How about you leave me out of the conversation now,

Nope. I'm not going to let you off that easy Dave. Because you see, I'm not a liar and I'm not stupid and clueless. But I can be stubborn and hard-headed and sometimes don't know when to stop. So against my better judgment I am going to try one more time. Here was our previous exchange:

I said:
Ok. Maybe I missed it. So I will repeat my request I wrote just above...... please explain to this stubborn clueless low-level idiot how the quite obvious western boxing elements we have seen in those clips are actually all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts. Can you do it Dave?

You replied:
Yeah I can, but I'm not going to.

Here is that sparring clip again for review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMpcM2Rywv0

Just watching Josh, here are the elements which, to me, look more like western boxing than Wing Chun:

1. assuming a wide stance with the body leaned forward and the chin tucked down and the hands up in front of the face generally leaving the center open
2. using bobbing and weaving and generally "bouncy" footwork
3. throwing wide punches while leaning the upper body to the side
4. moving into the opponent with the head down essentially driving forward with the forehead while hiding behind boxing gloves
5. executing a punch to the abdomen by lunging in while leaning forward at the waist

Again...to me... this looks more like boxing than Wing Chun. But you said you could explain how this is actually Wing Chun. I think YOU are the liar Dave! I don't think you can do it. So there it is. Please explain to us all in clear and concise language how each of the elements noted above that we see Josh doing in the clip are based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts and principles. I'm perfectly willing to admit that they are! And I am perfectly willing to apologize for calling YOU a liar if you can do actually do it! Here's your chance to bring this long painful thread to a close!

[tc101]

Here is that sparring clip again for review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMpcM2Rywv0

Just watching Josh, here are the elements which, to me, look more like western boxing than Wing Chun:

1. assuming a wide stance with the body leaned forward and the chin tucked down and the hands up in front of the face generally leaving the center open
2. using bobbing and weaving and generally "bouncy" footwork
3. throwing wide punches while leaning the upper body to the side
4. moving into the opponent with the head down essentially driving forward with the forehead while hiding behind boxing gloves
5. executing a punch to the abdomen by lunging in while leaning forward at the waist

Again...to me... this looks more like boxing than Wing Chun. But you said you could explain how this is actually Wing Chun. I think YOU are the liar Dave! I don't think you can do it. So there it is. Please explain to us all in clear and concise language how each of the elements noted above that we see Josh doing in the clip are based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts and principles. I'm perfectly willing to admit that they are! And I am perfectly willing to apologize for calling YOU a liar if you can do actually do it! Here's your chance to bring this long painful thread to a close!

It LOOKS like it LOOKS like it LOOKS like. You are hard headed lol. That you keep talking about what it LOOKS like says you are stuck on the model trying to LOOK like the model. You think let me repeat it for emphasis think think think think that when you fight your wing chun should LOOK like the model that you are fighting with the model. You cannot see beyond that because your experience hasn't taken you there yet.

Refer back to my tennis analogy. Can you hit a model forehand or backhand? Yes sometimes but most of the time no. It's easier when your opponent feeds you or is not challenging. But when you are really pushed your ground strokes will LOOK nothing like the model in the books.

The concepts are only a guide to help you not rules you are bound by.

[KPM]

But I will not tell Alan Orr or Robert Chu that what is obviously a representation of thier art in a realistic situation that's it's not Wing Chun because "I can't see it".


You can't do it can you Dave? You are just as "low level" and "stupid" and "clueless" as BPWT and I. But what's worse, is that you LIED about your level of understanding!


It LOOKS like it LOOKS like it LOOKS like. You are hard headed lol. That you keep talking about what it LOOKS like says you are stuck on the model trying to LOOK like the model. You think let me repeat it for emphasis think think think think that when you fight your wing chun should LOOK like the model that you are fighting with the model.

Yep! I admitted that I'm stubborn and hard-headed! So how about you take a stab at it Twen? Can you do it? Can you explain to this hard-headed "stuck on a model" guy how all those things I pointed out are all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts? Because I admit that things don't have to look just like they do in training and practice. I watched those other two sparring clips and they don't look like precise "drilling" Wing Chun either. But they still look like Wing Chun. So how about you help me out and explain how Wing Chun concepts are at the base of all those things I pointed out? I'm not saying they aren't! I'm not saying Alan Orr and his guys don't do Wing Chun! I'm just being honest and saying I don't personally see it in those clips. Call me hard-headed. But no amount of demeaning me by calling me "stupid" and "low level" and "clueless" without actually answering my question is going to change my mind. You're as hard-headed as I am! You don't see that? ;)

How about anyone else that has been chiming in here? Can you do it?

[LFJ]

You're kidding right? I posted it in-house on our own general forum and look at the reaction I got! ;)

Kind of, but don't you think if all you're seeing is Western Boxing that those on a boxing forum would recognize this as being what they do?

You already got other Wing Chun practitioners' opinions who mostly say you don't seem to understand applied Wing Chun. It sure would be interesting if the boxers were to say you don't understand boxing either if that's what you see in the clips.

[BPWT..]

It LOOKS like it LOOKS like it LOOKS like. You are hard headed lol. That you keep talking about what it LOOKS like says you are stuck on the model trying to LOOK like the model. You think let me repeat it for emphasis think think think think that when you fight your wing chun should LOOK like the model that you are fighting with the model. You cannot see beyond that because your experience hasn't taken you there yet.

Refer back to my tennis analogy. Can you hit a model forehand or backhand? Yes sometimes but most of the time no. It's easier when your opponent feeds you or is not challenging. But when you are really pushed your ground strokes will LOOK nothing like the model in the books.

The concepts are only a guide to help you not rules you are bound by.

Hi,

You are right regarding the tennis example, in that it impossible to always hit a perfect/textbook backhand all of the time (though Roger Federer comes pretty darn close). :)

However, looking at a backhand: You can hit it with slice, topspin or hit it flat. Federer's topspin backhand is different to, say Nadal's... but they both follow the 'concepts' as it were. Start low, hit over the ball. And they both have the correct 'technical' attributes too: plant the foot, bend the knee, particular grip (though Nadal's is typically more exaggerated), use of the shoulder, etc. And they both have the same 'result' (the ball rapid dips down when it reaches a certain part of its path/flight). Also, typically, they are both employing the same 'strategy' too when they use the backhand.

You can tell both are playing a backhand because of the above - you wouldn't confuse it with the swing of baseball bat, or a golf club.

Even someone like McEnroe, who appeared to be the exception to the rule in terms of having really unorthodox ground stokes, was still following the same conceptual, technical and strategic "rules". Tennis players are bound by them, even if we can see differences in style and tactics when the game is played.

Is Wing Chun the same? I would say yes. No two people will move exactly the same, no one can perform something perfectly all of the time (rarely once :)) and different lineages might have a different style or flavour to the system... but regardless, I would argue that whatever lineage you're from, you should be sticking to the concepts, strategy and technical requirements as much as you can (to me, all three of these things are the 'model').

If you don't follow these three things, can you say you are doing Wing Chun? Someone just scrapping in the street using whatever they can in the moment is also not following these three things - are they doing Wing Chun too? If particular concepts, strategy and technical requirements don't make Wing Chun what it is... then what does?


Here is that sparring clip again for review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMpcM2Rywv0

Just watching Josh, here are the elements which, to me, look more like western boxing than Wing Chun:

1. assuming a wide stance with the body leaned forward and the chin tucked down and the hands up in front of the face generally leaving the center open
2. using bobbing and weaving and generally "bouncy" footwork
3. throwing wide punches while leaning the upper body to the side
4. moving into the opponent with the head down essentially driving forward with the forehead while hiding behind boxing gloves
5. executing a punch to the abdomen by lunging in while leaning forward at the waist

Again...to me... this looks more like boxing than Wing Chun. But you said you could explain how this is actually Wing Chun... Please explain to us all in clear and concise language how each of the elements noted above that we see in the clip are based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts and principles. I'm perfectly willing to admit that they are!

This is the point exactly. Those of us who can't see Wing Chun here are all happy to admit we are wrong if the CSL WCK guys, or others, can explain how the above 5 points fit with their Wing Chun. Every martial art has concepts and strategy, and all have some technical requirements too (if not, every style would look the same in the classroom). Alan, in his various clips, has spoken about why they do certain things as opposed to doing other things - that is an indication that their style/method does have concepts, strategy and technical requirements - and that is why Alan has talked about body mechanics and body methods, etc, positioning and timing, etc... because CSL WCK clearly has a model too, just like all arts do.

How do you (anyone reading who clearly sees Wing Chun in that sparring clip) explain the 5 points in relation to the CSL WCK or their own lineage of Wing Chun?

Many people have posted many times on this thread, so people are clearly willing to invest some time into it - why not invest a little more to explain detailed answers to the above 5 points?

It is surely worth it, if only for the satisfaction of having KPM and myself say, "Sorry guys. I was wrong and you were right. You've now explained it, it makes sense and I fully admit that yes, I wasn't able to see what you were saying - but now I can. Again, my apologies."

But I think it should be possible to explain in some detail. To just say "We train Wing Chun, we use it, and it works and so that is your explanation," doesn't really help get everyone on the same page.

I decided to leave the thread as I was the main person objecting to what others were saying, so I figured if I bow out then the thread can just slide down the list, but seeing as people are still talking about it anyway... :D

[BPWT..]

Or why not start with something much simpler before addressing the 5 points that KPM listed.

Why not start by answering a question that Alan posed earlier. What is Wing Chun?

Alan, Chris, LFJ, tc101 - how do you define Wing Chun?

[KPM]

I lied about nothing tweeker,

Ok. Then prove it! All you have to do is give a nice concise explanation as to how each of the points I see in that clip conform to WCK concepts. After all, that is what this ENTIRE thread has been about! You were the one that said you could it! Its right here in writing! Do I need to copy if for you again? So come on! Let's see it! Prove me wrong!

You see Dave, for some weird reason you chose to pop into this thread and launch an attack on me personally. You skipped over the fact that it takes two sides to carry on any argument and chose to single out one side. And you skipped over the fact that I wasn't even the one doing most of the posting, BPWT was! You accused me of having some kind of agenda and some nefarious purpose and intent. When I explained what my intent was, you called me a liar! And you based this on your "instinct" or "intuition" and my supposedly "implied" meanings in what I was saying. You chose to single me out. So I'm singling you out. You clearly stated that you felt you could answer the question I was asking and explain how those things were based on Wing Chun concepts. I think you are full of sh!t. I think you lied about your level of understanding. You got yourself into this, not me! So let's see it! Let's see you explain what no one else really has in 25-some odd pages of this thread! If you refuse, then I can only assume its because you can't do it. This is discussion forum....so discuss your understanding of what Josh was doing in that clip! Drop the ridiculous "come see me and I'll show you!!" cr@p. This is a discussion forum. So discuss!!!!!!

[Alan Orr]

Hi,

You are right regarding the tennis example, in that it impossible to always hit a perfect/textbook backhand all of the time (though Roger Federer comes pretty darn close). :)

However, looking at a backhand: You can hit it with slice, topspin or hit it flat. Federer's topspin backhand is different to, say Nadal's... but they both follow the 'concepts' as it were. Start low, hit over the ball. And they both have the correct 'technical' attributes too: plant the foot, bend the knee, particular grip (though Nadal's is typically more exaggerated), use of the shoulder, etc. And they both have the same 'result' (the ball rapid dips down when it reaches a certain part of its path/flight). Also, typically, they are both employing the same 'strategy' too when they use the backhand.

You can tell both are playing a backhand because of the above - you wouldn't confuse it with the swing of baseball bat, or a golf club.

Even someone like McEnroe, who appeared to be the exception to the rule in terms of having really unorthodox ground stokes, was still following the same conceptual, technical and strategic "rules". Tennis players are bound by them, even if we can see differences in style and tactics when the game is played.

Is Wing Chun the same? I would say yes. No two people will move exactly the same, no one can perform something perfectly all of the time (rarely once :)) and different lineages might have a different style or flavour to the system... but regardless, I would argue that whatever lineage you're from, you should be sticking to the concepts, strategy and technical requirements as much as you can (to me, all three of these things are the 'model').

If you don't follow these three things, can you say you are doing Wing Chun? Someone just scrapping in the street using whatever they can in the moment is also not following these three things - are they doing Wing Chun too? If particular concepts, strategy and technical requirements don't make Wing Chun what it is... then what does?



This is the point exactly. Those of us who can't see Wing Chun here are all happy to admit we are wrong if the CSL WCK guys, or others, can explain how the above 5 points fit with their Wing Chun. Every martial art has concepts and strategy, and all have some technical requirements too (if not, every style would look the same in the classroom). Alan, in his various clips, has spoken about why they do certain things as opposed to doing other things - that is an indication that their style/method does have concepts, strategy and technical requirements - and that is why Alan has talked about body mechanics and body methods, etc, positioning and timing, etc... because CSL WCK clearly has a model too, just like all arts do.

How do you (anyone reading who clearly sees Wing Chun in that sparring clip) explain the 5 points in relation to the CSL WCK or their own lineage of Wing Chun?

Many people have posted many times on this thread, so people are clearly willing to invest some time into it - why not invest a little more to explain detailed answers to the above 5 points?

It is surely worth it, if only for the satisfaction of having KPM and myself say, "Sorry guys. I was wrong and you were right. You've now explained it, it makes sense and I fully admit that yes, I wasn't able to see what you were saying - but now I can. Again, my apologies."

But I think it should be possible to explain in some detail. To just say "We train Wing Chun, we use it, and it works and so that is your explanation," doesn't really help get everyone on the same page.

I decided to leave the thread as I was the main person objecting to what others were saying, so I figured if I bow out then the thread can just slide down the list, but seeing as people are still talking about it anyway... :D


Listen I know you don't understand real fighting but the point is under pressure it not always going to look perfect. Also as I have said you use the skills of your art to deal with your opponent.


Anyway yes in real fighting you sometimes press forward in case you take a punch when attacking you also move you head to off set your opponents attacks. This is all 3rd form concepts. Bending the waist. We move are head from moving the waist not like most boxing. But if we needed too then we would also move the head. That's dealing with the problem.


In wing chun you only have to lock on your structure when you have a bridge control. Outside of that you can move and be harder to hit. We are not robots.

Show your wing chun under this kind of pressure - not demos not set drills not head gear sparring and show me what happens.


In fact I'm happy to see any clips of your wing chun. That will save a lot of wasted time.

[BPWT..]

Thanks for replying (I will ignore the "I know you don't understand real fighting", so we don't get into silly name calling).

We also have a waist-bending movement in the BT form (I think all YM lineages have this), but for us this is very much an emergency movement.

I don't want to misquote or misunderstand what you are saying, so is it correct for me to think that you (CSL WCK) are happy to apply this movement to punches, for example, and that the body position/structure that goes with it is not seen as a compromise?

So doing so it is a part of your system's concepts that are not exclusively for emergency use?

I mean that for us (in my lineage), this type of movement would be a last resort as we already have compromised structure; but do you mean that for you this waist bending and moving the head forward is not see as a compromise to your Wing Chun's more usual upright upper-body position?

If so, okay - and thanks.

If you or Chris have the time, how would you describe CSL WCK's optimal body structure (a basic description)? I mean in terms of alignment (knees, hips, shoulders, neck, elbows).

[Grumblegeezer]

Seeing how this thread has deteriorated to the point of no return, I'm starting a new thread trying to approach this debate from a third perspective. I'm giving this a try, since I see value in observations made in both sides of the debates going on here ...namely KPM and BPWT on one side, as well as Alan, Chris DLCox, and TC 101 on the other. But you guys seem to be talking right past each other. Maybe if the discussion were framed differently, we could all at least agree to disagree respectfully?

Then again, probably not! LOL Either way, look for a thread titled, "Old School or New School WC?". I'll probably just get yelled at. Buy, hey, I'm married so I'm used to it. --Steve

[Alan Orr]

Thanks for replying (I will ignore the "I know you don't understand real fighting", so we don't get into silly name calling).

We also have a waist-bending movement in the BT form (I think all YM lineages have this), but for us this is very much an emergency movement.

I don't want to misquote or misunderstand what you are saying, so is it correct for me to think that you (CSL WCK) are happy to apply this movement to punches, for example, and that the body position/structure that goes with it is not seen as a compromise?

So doing so it is a part of your system's concepts that are not exclusively for emergency use?

I mean that for us (in my lineage), this type of movement would be a last resort as we already have compromised structure; but do you mean that for you this waist bending and moving the head forward is not see as a compromise to your Wing Chun's more usual upright upper-body position?

If so, okay - and thanks.

If you or Chris have the time, how would you describe CSL WCK's optimal body structure (a basic description)? I mean in terms of alignment (knees, hips, shoulders, neck, elbows).


The 3rd is has many principles that can be used at any time.

No I am not hear to teach you our system. When I film videos I post them. I posted the fight to share the news. I'm not wasting my time with someone who will not share their name or share a clip.

[BPWT..]

While Grumblegeezer resets the clock with a new thread :) here's some food for thought (regarding stand-up guard positioning we were discussing earlier)

http://vk.com/video_ext.php?oid=134264917&id=168348777&hash=eb439a09cf3b05eb&hd=1

One of my favourite fighters, check how Jon Jones (in this fight) utilised an extended hand - often using it to set up those nasty elbows. One of the commentators said, "He's gotta stop doing that. He got his hand out with fingers out and you can't do that as the other guy can't come in as he'll get a finger in the eye."

Sounds sweet, LOL. :D

Now for sure, Jon Jones is no Wing Chun guy (more's the pity :D), and this position was not WCK's Man Sau Wu Sau. But you could argue it was an approximation of it, and it helped control incoming attacks and led to some great bridge work once the distance was reduced. Certainly in a way that would have been much harder to do if he'd had both hands back to use as cover only.

Man, I could watch this guy's fights all day. :)

[tc101]

[B]It LOOKS like it LOOKS like it LOOKS like. You are hard headed lol. That you keep talking about what it LOOKS like says you are stuck on the model trying to LOOK like the model. You think let me repeat it for emphasis think think think think that when you fight your wing chun should LOOK like the model that you are fighting with the model.

Yep! I admitted that I'm stubborn and hard-headed! So how about you take a stab at it Twen? Can you do it? Can you explain to this hard-headed "stuck on a model" guy how all those things I pointed out are all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts? Because I admit that things don't have to look just like they do in training and practice. I watched those other two sparring clips and they don't look like precise "drilling" Wing Chun either. But they still look like Wing Chun. So how about you help me out and explain how Wing Chun concepts are at the base of all those things I pointed out? I'm not saying they aren't! I'm not saying Alan Orr and his guys don't do Wing Chun! I'm just being honest and saying I don't personally see it in those clips. Call me hard-headed. But no amount of demeaning me by calling me "stupid" and "low level" and "clueless" without actually answering my question is going to change my mind. You're as hard-headed as I am! You don't see that? ;)

How about anyone else that has been chiming in here? Can you do it?

Yes I know you don't get it. Here's the thing it can be explained and explained until the cows come home and you will not see it because the only way to see it is through personal experience. You think think think you understand how the concepts tools tactics and so forth work in fighting but you don't. The only only only only way to know how they work for you you you you is through finding that out for yourself through sparring and lots of it. You have yo experience lots of sparring fighting to see how things really are and they are not what you think. You also have to work out how to deal with your opponents using your wing chun. You don't want to hear that because you think you can grasp it intellectually without having to go through the labor. But you can't.

[Alan Orr]

While Grumblegeezer resets the clock with a new thread :) here's some food for thought (regarding stand-up guard positioning we were discussing earlier)

http://vk.com/video_ext.php?oid=134264917&id=168348777&hash=eb439a09cf3b05eb&hd=1

One of my favourite fighters, check how Jon Jones (in this fight) utilised an extended hand - often using it to set up those nasty elbows. One of the commentators said, "He's gotta stop doing that. He got his hand out with fingers out and you can't do that as the other guy can't come in as he'll get a finger in the eye."

Sounds sweet, LOL. :D

Now for sure, Jon Jones is no Wing Chun guy (more's the pity :D), and this position was not WCK's Man Sau Wu Sau. But you could argue it was an approximation of it, and it helped control incoming attacks and led to some great bridge work once the distance was reduced. Certainly in a way that would have been much harder to do if he'd had both hands back to use as cover only.

Man, I could watch this guy's fights all day. :)


The principles of wrestling are very close to CSL wing chun body structure skills.

Jon jones has great wrestling. Now a wrestling coach may or may not say where is his wrestling in mma. Base control, timing, positioning. Power etc just as we apply our wing chun

Jon jones shows great hand fighting, clinch and elbows plus distance control

This is josh working our wing chun elbows


http://youtu.be/LeOFzKmaYac

[BPWT..]

The 3rd is has many principles that can be used at any time.

I agree.


No I am not hear to teach you our system.

That's okay, because I don't want to learn it! I just wanted to understand it a bit better. I'm sorry you don't feel like explaining it.


I'm not wasting my time with someone who will not share their name or share a clip.

Fair enough. If you're uncomfortable explaining stuff in any detail because you don't know my name and haven't seen a clip of me, I find that a little strange. I'm happy to answer any Qs you have, I just don't wish to have a public profile (I have work-related reasons for this, and I can't - and don't want - to change that).

[Alan Orr]

I agree.



That's okay, because I don't want to learn it! I just wanted to understand it a bit better. I'm sorry you don't feel like explaining it.



Fair enough. If you're uncomfortable explaining stuff in any detail because you don't know my name and haven't seen a clip of me, I find that a little strange. I'm happy to answer any Qs you have, I just don't wish to have a public profile (I have work-related reasons for this, and I can't - and don't want - to change that).


No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

[tc101]

Hi,

You are right regarding the tennis example, in that it impossible to always hit a perfect/textbook backhand all of the time (though Roger Federer comes pretty darn close). :)

However, looking at a backhand: You can hit it with slice, topspin or hit it flat. Federer's topspin backhand is different to, say Nadal's... but they both follow the 'concepts' as it were. Start low, hit over the ball. And they both have the correct 'technical' attributes too: plant the foot, bend the knee, particular grip (though Nadal's is typically more exaggerated), use of the shoulder, etc. And they both have the same 'result' (the ball rapid dips down when it reaches a certain part of its path/flight). Also, typically, they are both employing the same 'strategy' too when they use the backhand.

You can tell both are playing a backhand because of the above - you wouldn't confuse it with the swing of baseball bat, or a golf club.

Even someone like McEnroe, who appeared to be the exception to the rule in terms of having really unorthodox ground stokes, was still following the same conceptual, technical and strategic "rules". Tennis players are bound by them, even if we can see differences in style and tactics when the game is played.


If you look at the tennis books the ground strokes taught with the model being stationary flat footed side facing evenly balanced stance with the racket arm drawing the racket back a bit then swinging at the ball while remaining stationary but shifting the weight slightly forward as you hit the ball and so on. In practice no one never or hardly ever looks like that. People are usually running not stationary they may be leaning one way and not evenly balanced their facing may be really off and so on. Like your complaint about the Orr fighters stance.

You see what the model teaches you is not the exterior stuff that you see that is only for beginners but the interior stuff you don't see. How to connect your weight to the ball with timing and solidity. By practicing the model action the beginner catches on to the interior stuff and becomes free of the exterior stuff. His ground strokes do not look like the books anymore. My teacher called it the substance. The form is to teach you the substance. Once you have the substance you don't need the form. Or learn the principle, abide by the principle, then dissolve the principle.



Is Wing Chun the same? I would say yes. No two people will move exactly the same, no one can perform something perfectly all of the time (rarely once :)) and different lineages might have a different style or flavor to the system... but regardless, I would argue that whatever lineage you're from, you should be sticking to the concepts, strategy and technical requirements as much as you can (to me, all three of these things are the 'model').

If you don't follow these three things, can you say you are doing Wing Chun? Someone just scrapping in the street using whatever they can in the moment is also not following these three things - are they doing Wing Chun too? If particular concepts, strategy and technical requirements don't make Wing Chun what it is... then what does?


Here's another way to look at it. Wing chun is what a wing chun trained fighter does.

Sum Nung got into a fight on a bus against multiple opponents. He beat them by hanging from the hand straps while kicking them. Is this wing chun? It must be since that is all he knew or trained lol.



This is the point exactly. Those of us who can't see Wing Chun here are all happy to admit we are wrong if the CSL WCK guys, or others, can explain how the above 5 points fit with their Wing Chun. Every martial art has concepts and strategy, and all have some technical requirements too (if not, every style would look the same in the classroom). Alan, in his various clips, has spoken about why they do certain things as opposed to doing other things - that is an indication that their style/method does have concepts, strategy and technical requirements - and that is why Alan has talked about body mechanics and body methods, etc, positioning and timing, etc... because CSL WCK clearly has a model too, just like all arts do.

How do you (anyone reading who clearly sees Wing Chun in that sparring clip) explain the 5 points in relation to the CSL WCK or their own lineage of Wing Chun?


How is that not wing chun? Can you explain that to me?

[BPWT..]

Hi BPWT, I know you are addressing Alan and his CSL but just wanted to chime in again. Thx.

How dare you chime in, uninvited!!! :D



BPWT: what is or how do you and/or your lineage define an "emergency movement"?

Typically, a moment when centreline and structure have been really, really badly compromised. A time when you need to turn the tables. So times when you're out of position or maybe overpowered, etc.



Punches...yes, kicks...yes, headlock attempts...yes, ANYTIME it (a bending of the waist) will do what's required at that moment to get the job done. And what do you mean by "compromise"?

I mean that in Wing Tsun if we want to keep facing, and, say, the ability to strike and control at the same time, and we want to generate power in a certain way, and keep general body and elbow positioning in a certain way, then bending forward at the waist and extending our head forward would mean compromising some of those things.


A trainee has to wait until he learns 3rd form in order to handle "emergencies"...!?!?!?!?!?! Doesn't "BT" take several years to get to in your WT curriculum(?) That just doesn't make sense to me.

Before you get to BT in the WT system you already learning to correct positioning, etc. But BT is has some ideas for dealing with 'worse case' scenarios. But things are complicated :) as you will learn various BT ideas before you get to the actual form - some of its material appears much, much earlier. I was saying earlier in the thread that for us, BT is not just about emergency techniques - lots and lots of things to learn from this form. ;)

Also, in some ways, the BT form does things very differently to how things are done in SNT and CK, so it's a learning progression. You start with certain materials and learn the concepts, strategy and tactics - and then BT puts a different spin on things. It is still all Wing Tsun of course, but... a little different. :D A different type of power generation, for example... and a type that you've been setting the foundation for with earlier training... so getting to it really early (in some respects), might not help you too much.

Edit: I should add that for us BT emergency work tends to be when things have already gone wrong - if I wasn't clear about it. For us, BT is really also about a different sense of timing (when compared to what you would learn from SNT and CK parts of the syllabus. The timing of BT related work is 'later'. You are dealing with things at the very last instance - which can make some of the related material quite hard to defend against - but also can make it quite hard to implement too. Another reason why it isn't learnt too early on - need to get nice regular timing right first. LOL

[BPWT..]

In practice no one never or hardly ever looks like that. People are usually running not stationary they may be leaning one way and not evenly balanced their facing may be really off and so on.

Probably, we'd disagree on tennis more than we would on Wing Chun. :) In tennis, people can be off balance, for example, but you see that technically they are still performing the backhand well, even under bad conditions. Not the same, in my opinion, as the sparring clip from Alan, where the guys were sparring well but, in my opinion, boxing rather than using Wing Chun. That is why I asked some questions, to see how in Alan's view they are still doing Wing Chun even though it doesn't seem they are (to me). Plus, regarding tennis, you must admit that even under extreme pressure, pro players are actually very often doing everything right. They are not, for example, always off balance, etc. They make their 'system' work under great pressure from the opponent.



Here's another way to look at it. Wing chun is what a wing chun trained fighter does.Sum Nung got into a fight on a bus against multiple opponents. He beat them by hanging from the hand straps while kicking them. Is this wing chun? It must be since that is all he knew or trained lol.

I do, kinda, see what you're saying but to me it produces lots of problems :D If all I train is Wing Tsun, and you and I get into a fight, and I spit in your face, quickly stamp on both your feet and then I run away - was I using Wing Tsun? I don't think so. :) Sure, I stopped you from chasing me down and I got away and you're injured and I am not... but still.


How is that not wing chun? Can you explain that to me?

I mean that in Alan's instructional clips, you can see the conceptual work, the strategy and tactics, the body position and method, the close body work, etc, etc and to me it does look like Wing Chun (again, I like the man's instructional clips - glad he makes them and shares them). But when I look at things like the sparring clip, I don't really see any of the above. I am not really talking about seeing a tan or a bong - I knows things can look different when sparring. But I really don't see any of the conceptual elements, any of the general body methods, etc. That is why I asked for Alan to describe things in more detail - so I can try and understand how all of those things are present in the sparring clip. In some cases, what I see in the sparring clip goes very much against what is in my Wing Chun, so I want to understand how that sparring fits into his Wing Chun.

That's all. :D

[BPWT..]

My answers:

Many thanks! You are right, I am not familiar with much (almost all) of the terminology you are using (names of forms/movements, etc), so admittedly it is a little hard to picture some of the things you're talking about.

What Wing Chun lineage is this?

[BPWT..]

It is mostly Ruan Ji Yun (Yuen Chai Wan) lineage with a smattering of Ye Kai Wen (Yip Man) and Wu Zhong Su (Ng Chung So). I'm a mutt not a purebred.

Okay, so this Yuen Kay San related WCK (his brother, I mean - so Vietnamese WCK?) and also WCK from Yip Man's senior (Ng Chung So).

I haven't been exposed to people in either system - but a lot of what you're describing is new to me. Can you point me in a direction to read more or see some of this (to get a better picture)?

[KPM]

This will probably open up another whole can of worms, but, I thought I’d at least address the 5 points that you brought up.

Now you may not be familiar with my terminology, there is nothing I can do about that, it is what it is. I think I’ve satisfied the requirements of the questions posed, but I’m sure you will re-butte my answers as you always do and counter with more questions. .

Thank you Dave! No, I am not familiar with your terminology and so did not exactly follow all that you said. Some of it did sound familiar though and made some sense because it is similar to Ku Lo Pin Sun. But I do appreciate that you made the effort to attempt an explanation, and you did it in a very civil tone. So I apologize for calling you a liar and thank you for your response!

You might also want to take a moment to reflect, as there is a very prominent theory out there that Wing Chun was developed in response to European Boxing methods that were used by the British Sailors during and after the Boxer Rebellion

Yes, I'm familiar with that theory. I believe Karl Godwin was a big proponent of it years ago. If I remember properly he even claimed to have found an old gentleman teaching "Omni Pugilism" that was supposed to be an evolution of the old boxing as a martial art. Godwin claimed it had lots of similarities to Wing Chun. But that's a topic for another discussion!

You see, this whole long drawn out thread could have been easily avoided if Alan had simply said this 20 pages ago:

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

But he didn't. When BPWT and I were honest and said we didn't see the Wing Chun in those clips Alan could have said, "yea, it may be subtle and not obvious but the Wing Chun is there. But I can't take the time to explain what we are doing right now." But he didn't. Instead he told us we were "low level" and "clueless" and "stupid." So we kept asking, and kept getting told we "just couldn't see it" and "were stuck in a model." So foolishly we asked again, and tone and the exchange just kept going downhill. Its really quite simple. Treat people with respect and you will get respect back. Tell them they are "stupid" and "clueless" and they will just stay up in your face. BPWT and I were asking what we thought was a pretty obvious question...why didn't the action in those clips look more like Wing Chun and less like boxing?" We didn't mean that as disrespectful. We weren't saying that Alan and his goes don't do Wing Chun. We were truly trying to see how THEY were seeing Wing Chun expressed that way. And both BPWT and I tried to keep asking in as a respectful way as possible. But the response we got was not at all respectful.

But that's beside the point now and I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks again Dave. You are the only one out of 28 pages of posts that truly made the effort to explain things.

[Alan Orr]

Thank you Dave! No, I am not familiar with your terminology and so did not exactly follow all that you said. Some of it did sound familiar though and made some sense because it is similar to Ku Lo Pin Sun. But I do appreciate that you made the effort to attempt an explanation, and you did it in a very civil tone. So I apologize for calling you a liar and thank you for your response!

You might also want to take a moment to reflect, as there is a very prominent theory out there that Wing Chun was developed in response to European Boxing methods that were used by the British Sailors during and after the Boxer Rebellion

Yes, I'm familiar with that theory. I believe Karl Godwin was a big proponent of it years ago. If I remember properly he even claimed to have found an old gentleman teaching "Omni Pugilism" that was supposed to be an evolution of the old boxing as a martial art. Godwin claimed it had lots of similarities to Wing Chun. But that's a topic for another discussion!

You see, this whole long drawn out thread could have been easily avoided if Alan had simply said this 20 pages ago:

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

But he didn't. When BPWT and I were honest and said we didn't see the Wing Chun in those clips Alan could have said, "yea, it may be subtle and not obvious but the Wing Chun is there. But I can't take the time to explain what we are doing right now." But he didn't. Instead he told us we were "low level" and "clueless" and "stupid." So we kept asking, and kept getting told we "just couldn't see it" and "were stuck in a model." So foolishly we asked again, and tone and the exchange just kept going downhill. Its really quite simple. Treat people with respect and you will get respect back. Tell them they are "stupid" and "clueless" and they will just stay up in your face. BPWT and I were asking what we thought was a pretty obvious question...why didn't the action in those clips look more like Wing Chun and less like boxing?" We didn't mean that as disrespectful. We weren't saying that Alan and his goes don't do Wing Chun. We were truly trying to see how THEY were seeing Wing Chun expressed that way. And both BPWT and I tried to keep asking in as a respectful way as possible. But the response we got was not at all respectful.

But that's beside the point now and I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks again Dave. You are the only one out of 28 pages of posts that truly made the effort to explain things.


No you said well done, but you can't see any wing chun. Don't try and start sounding like you all hard done by now.

[LFJ]

I mean that for us (in my lineage), this type of movement would be a last resort as we already have compromised structure; but do you mean that for you this waist bending and moving the head forward is not see as a compromise to your Wing Chun's more usual upright upper-body position?

How would it be considered a compromise of position if they're knocking people out with it?

The only thing being compromised is the ability to look to you like they're doing Wing Chun. But unlike LTWT, CSLWC is not just a stylized way of getting your ass kicked.

[GlennR]

No you said well done, but you can't see any wing chun. Don't try and start sounding like you all hard done by now.

And whats wrong with them having an opinion Alan?

Your WC isnt as obvious to some people that do a different lineage..... they dont get it, accept it and move on.
Why the insults such as.....


WTF are people stupid? My team has had 100's of MMA K1 and boxing matches using CSL Wing Chun. So that's just not true at all. Our Wing Chun works on the street and in combat sports. If your doesn't not then that is fine. But stop telling me what you don't understand.

FWIW, i havent seen anyone insult you directly, they just have a different opinionon what WC is.

[Alan Orr]

This will probably open up another whole can of worms, but, I thought I’d at least address the 5 points that you brought up.

This is not representative of CSL Wing Chun. I do not study their system, I am only speaking from my own lineage and experience.

Alan please feel free to clarify and add insight to any of the points that I address if they do not match your philosophy, I do not wish to speak for you or your system.

The 5 Points of Argument:

1. assuming a wide stance with the body leaned forward and the chin tucked down and the hands up in front of the face generally leaving the center open

2. using bobbing and weaving and generally "bouncy" footwork

3. throwing wide punches while leaning the upper body to the side

4. moving into the opponent with the head down essentially driving forward with the forehead while hiding behind boxing gloves

5. executing a punch to the abdomen by lunging in while leaning forward at the waist


My answers:
1. In Chen Qiao Quan (Sinking Bridges Fist) there is a Xun Qiao Bu (Seeking Bridge Stance) that utilizes Li Qiao (Double Bridges) in the pattern of Hei Hu Chu Lin (Black Tiger Emerges from the Forest). This is essentially a variation of Wen Shou (Asking Hands). Wen Shou has 3 positions High, Middle & Low it is a variation of the Middle position. It is a good basic fighting stance that lends itself nicely to the concept of Gai (Covering) from a distance.

2. In Biao Zhi Quan (Darting Fingers Fist) there is a method called Jiu Shen (Saving Body). Jiu Shen utilizes Wan Yao (Bending Waist) and can be applied in various permutations and if the circling is shortened up will resemble Bobbing & Weaving based upon the stance used. It is used in much the same manner as Boxing, hence the name Saving Body. Footwork varies immensely from lineage to lineage, but I see the concept of San Jiao Ma (Triangle Horse) being utilized as it would appear under heavy pressure. San Jiao Ma is usually in play before Zi Wu Bu (Meridian Stepping) & Juan Bu (Circle Stepping) are employed as it is a good counter method that maintains a bit of offensive pressure.

3. In Biao Zhi Quan (Darting Fingers Fist) there are several techniques that employ this maneuver. Gai Zhou (Covering Elbow) and Gou Lan Chui (Hooked Barring Cut) are 2 techniques that go hand in hand. Gou Lan Chui can be an elongated hook or a short hook. It lends itself nicely to Gai Zhou when in a defensive recovery mode or counter attack when the opponent comes crashing in. It is also a versatile technique that can hit from a variety of angles. It is best employed from Pian Shen (Side Body). There are more examples within the form but I think these 2 cover it. Chou Chui (Bouncing Cut) from Chen Qiao Quan also can be applied in this manner, albeit from the bottom up. It will resemble a Slice Punch, Bolo Punch or Uppercut from Boxing depending on the angle.

4. This concept can be found in my Shier Sanshi (12 Loose Techniques) it is known as Huan Hun Yao Tie Ban Qiao (Emergency Waist Bend & Iron Half Bridge). It relies heavily on the concept of Bi Ma (Pressing Horse) and is used as a method of covering under heavy pressure. It can be employed as defense for countering or offensively to break the opponents structure. It lends itself nicely to Throwing & Grappling.

5. In my line we call this punch She Shou Chui (Snake Hand Cut) it uses the principles of Sui (Follow) & Lou (Leak). It’s use depends on the position of the bridge and if the bridge is an obstacle. It is employed in the same manner as on the video when coming out of the Huan Hun Yao Tie Ban Qiao position. It is very similar to a Body Jab in Boxing when thrown from a distance, in close it will resemble "typical" Wing Chun.

Now you may not be familiar with my terminology, there is nothing I can do about that, it is what it is. I think I’ve satisfied the requirements of the questions posed, but I’m sure you will re-butte my answers as you always do and counter with more questions. You might also want to take a moment to reflect, as there is a very prominent theory out there that Wing Chun was developed in response to European Boxing methods that were used by the British Sailors during and after the Boxer Rebellion.

Very good answers.

[Alan Orr]

And whats wrong with them having an opinion Alan?

Your WC isnt as obvious to some people that do a different lineage..... they dont get it, accept it and move on.
Why the insults such as.....



FWIW, i havent seen anyone insult you directly, they just have a different opinionon what WC is.

Maybe it is to do with every time I post on this forum I have to deal with the same group of guys that just don't listen to what I have already said many times.

I don't mind one bit if people agree or not. Everyone has their own views. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when people tell me what they think about what I'm doing when they don't know my system or when I have already confirm what it was.

[LFJ]

Chou Chui (Bouncing Cut)

Do you know the character for that?

[BPWT..]

How would it be considered a compromise of position if they're knocking people out with it?

The only thing being compromised is the ability to look to you like they're doing Wing Chun. But unlike LTWT, CSLWC is not just a stylized way of getting your ass kicked.

I think you know what I mean, but you're doing your best to bring this back to insults rather than discussion.

I mean this: if a Wing Chun guy used an axe kick to someone's head, that kick might well have compromised his Wing Chun body method, his Wing Chun structure - maybe it would be in conflict with his Wing Chun concepts.

If the kick knocks the other guy out cold, that's a great result! But was it a kick using Wing Chun's methods? The result (positive) of the kick isn't the issue.

If Tyson wins a fight by head butting someone, is that boxing? If you say, "Yes, it's boxing," then that is where we see things differently.

[KPM]

No you said well done, but you can't see any wing chun. Don't try and start sounding like you all hard done by now.

I'm not denying that at all. I couldn't see the Wing Chun in those two clips and was truly curious how you were seeing it as Wing Chun. And BPWT and I asked that in a respectful and polite way. But the response we received was not at all respectful or polite. And like I said, if you are going to tell me I am "stupid" and "clueless" and "low level" simply for asking questions and expressing an opinion, well....I'm going to stay in your face! I guess I'm just stubborn and hard-headed that way. ;)

[KPM]

How would it be considered a compromise of position if they're knocking people out with it?

The only thing being compromised is the ability to look to you like they're doing Wing Chun. But unlike LTWT, CSLWC is not just a stylized way of getting your ass kicked.

Let me point that it is EXACTLY this kind of response to an honest question that has turned this thread into a 30 page b!tch-fest! How can ANYONE place blame on just one side of this whole exchange???????

[KPM]

Maybe it is to do with every time I post on this forum I have to deal with the same group of guys that just don't listen to what I have already said many times.

I don't mind one bit if people agree or not. Everyone has their own views. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when people tell me what they think about what I'm doing when they don't know my system or when I have already confirm what it was.

Alan, you commented before that you haven't necessarily read every post in this thread. So please don't take this as insulting, I'm just trying to truly make sure you didn't miss it t he first time I said it:

You see, this whole long drawn out thread could have been easily avoided if Alan had simply said this 20 pages ago:

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

But he didn't. When BPWT and I were honest and said we didn't see the Wing Chun in those clips Alan could have said, "yea, it may be subtle and not obvious but the Wing Chun is there. But I can't take the time to explain what we are doing right now." But he didn't. Instead he told us we were "low level" and "clueless" and "stupid." So we kept asking, and kept getting told we "just couldn't see it" and "were stuck in a model." So foolishly we asked again, and tone and the exchange just kept going downhill. Its really quite simple. Treat people with respect and you will get respect back. Tell them they are "stupid" and "clueless" and they will just stay up in your face. BPWT and I were asking what we thought was a pretty obvious question...why didn't the action in those clips look more like Wing Chun and less like boxing?" We didn't mean that as disrespectful. We weren't saying that Alan and his goes don't do Wing Chun. We were truly trying to see how THEY were seeing Wing Chun expressed that way. And both BPWT and I tried to keep asking in as a respectful way as possible. But the response we got was not at all respectful.

And for the record, I have never in the past had this particular discussion with you or questioned what you were doing. I hope you can see that this whole long drawn out thread is as much your making as it is BPWT or I. That was my reason for reposting what I said before. No "agendas" or hidden intentions.

[BPWT..]

Let me point that it is EXACTLY this kind of response to an honest question that has turned this thread into a 30 page b!tch-fest! How can ANYONE place blame on just one side of this whole exchange???????

It's a time-honored response. :) If someone fails to explain something... they use an insult instead. :(

[Frost]

While Grumblegeezer resets the clock with a new thread :) here's some food for thought (regarding stand-up guard positioning we were discussing earlier)

http://vk.com/video_ext.php?oid=134264917&id=168348777&hash=eb439a09cf3b05eb&hd=1

One of my favourite fighters, check how Jon Jones (in this fight) utilised an extended hand - often using it to set up those nasty elbows. One of the commentators said, "He's gotta stop doing that. He got his hand out with fingers out and you can't do that as the other guy can't come in as he'll get a finger in the eye."

Sounds sweet, LOL. :D

Now for sure, Jon Jones is no Wing Chun guy (more's the pity :D), and this position was not WCK's Man Sau Wu Sau. But you could argue it was an approximation of it, and it helped control incoming attacks and led to some great bridge work once the distance was reduced. Certainly in a way that would have been much harder to do if he'd had both hands back to use as cover only.

Man, I could watch this guy's fights all day. :)

Oh god here we go again the old I cant prove what I think wing chun should look like works but look here is a top level MMA guy using something like what I think it should validation argument
Ok lets examine the argument apart shall we….. jones has something like a 10 inch reach advantage on everyone he fights, his reach is longer than most peoples kicking range which is why he gets away with the above,
And even in this fight you see the problem with this kind of guard the smaller less skilled striker still clipped him with over hands and uppercuts. Try doing that with a half decent boxer your own size and you will get rocked out, I know this because its happened to me and ive done it to others …we had a few wing chun people pop through leister shootfighters in the 10 years I was there and this is how I dealt with the problem, head movement and overhand
The above also has two other issues , leaving your lead arm out their exposes your ribs and core to kicks (which isn’t a problem for jones because of his reach), and also exposes your lead leg to the takedown, again jones’s reach makes the distance too wide for the single to be really effective, and his level of wrestling makes it even harder to take him down, actually you see in this fight his opponent gets the single a couple of times because of the stance used by jones, but cant finish because of jones’s wrestling skills
unless you are jones and have a reach longer than a normal persons kicking range and are a D1 wrestler this isn’t going to work for you so please stop validating what you think should work by using a world class athletic freak…
And as an aside what does jones do when he gets clipped by the overhand in that fight?, he covers up like alans guys do…

[LFJ]

It's a time-honored response. :) If someone fails to explain something... they use an insult instead. :(

No. I explained it to you. The only thing compromised is the ability to look to you like Wing Chun, but that's more your problem than theirs.

Your whole axe kick analogy is false. They aren't using techniques outside of Wing Chun or that violate their principles.

Again, that it is not your Wing Tsun doesn't mean it isn't Wing Chun. You can't just come on here telling them what they are doing is equivalent to adding an axe kick to their Wing Chu and still calling it Wing Chun (i.e. lying, deceiving)...

You don't realize it, but that is a big insult to their lineage, method, and the hard work they put into getting Wing Chun some recognition in Pro fighting, which is more than most embarrassments of lineages have done for the Wing Chun image. So, no, you don't get sympathy for receiving insults in return.

[BPWT..]

Nope. I said I can't see the Wing Chun in the sparring clip, for example, and said what I saw look more akin to two boxers sparring. I ask them if they could explain how what is going on is from their Wing Chun methods.

More insults and name calling came than explanation, and Alan said he didn't want to waste the time explaining. Why you're throwing in insults too is beyond me.

You were the same on the Kevin/Obasi thread - arguing a point with more insults than explanation, though by the end you did seem to admit that there wasn't too much you could say in Kevin's defense (though you didn't start that way).

As Glenn pointed out - different opinions don't need to be taken as insults. Heck, you're doing your best to actually insult me and I don't give a cr@p.

[BPWT..]

Oh god here we go again the old I cant prove what I think wing chun should look like works but look here is a top level MMA guy using something like what I think it should validation argument
Ok lets examine the argument apart shall we….. jones has something like a 10 inch reach advantage on everyone he fights, his reach is longer than most peoples kicking range which is why he gets away with the above,
And even in this fight you see the problem with this kind of guard the smaller less skilled striker still clipped him with over hands and uppercuts. Try doing that with a half decent boxer your own size and you will get rocked out, I know this because its happened to me and ive done it to others …we had a few wing chun people pop through leister shootfighters in the 10 years I was there and this is how I dealt with the problem, head movement and overhand
The above also has two other issues , leaving your lead arm out their exposes your ribs and core to kicks (which isn’t a problem for jones because of his reach), and also exposes your lead leg to the takedown, again jones’s reach makes the distance too wide for the single to be really effective, and his level of wrestling makes it even harder to take him down, actually you see in this fight his opponent gets the single a couple of times because of the stance used by jones, but cant finish because of jones’s wrestling skills
unless you are jones and have a reach longer than a normal persons kicking range and are a D1 wrestler this isn’t going to work for you so please stop validating what you think should work by using a world class athletic freak…


Many valid points! Would you say that the Man Sau Wu Sau guard (or something similar to it) has more limitations/problems than not? Or would you advocate using it with certain disclaimers?


And as an aside what does jones do when he gets clipped by the overhand in that fight?, he covers up like alans guys do…

Exactly, when he "gets clipped." Alan's guys do this in that range too, and I have no problem with it. Like I said, it is about time frames.

The question I asked was why they would choose to assume this position before the other guy throws a punch? For a boxer, I understand it can make sense - but as a Wing Chun guy, would you want to cover to take the hits on the hands/gloves?

If yes, how does that fit into your Wing Chun concepts? That is what I was asking.

Most Wing Chun lineages that I have seen have a strong emphasis on Man Sau/Wu, as it fits into the system's concepts and general ideas. So I asked how this other guard fits into Alan's system.

Apparently asking such questions is an insult to Alan, his fighters, his teacher and his system itself. It beggars belief.

[LFJ]

Apparently asking such questions is an insult to Alan, his fighters, his teacher and his system itself.

It's when you and KPM keep suggesting that what they do is not "straight up" Wing Chun, but something modified to suit the MMA environment. That is saying what they're doing isn't Wing Chun. See your most recent "incorporating axe kicks" example.

You continually challenging people to "prove" their tactics conform to the model of Wing Chun is a way to challenge them against your opinion that it isn't in fact Wing Chun. To be honest, it's not just a matter of you showing interest in their method, you actually believe they are doing something extra that is not Wing Chun and want to press the point.

[Alan Orr]

No. I explained it to you. The only thing compromised is the ability to look to you like Wing Chun, but that's more your problem than theirs.

Your whole axe kick analogy is false. They aren't using techniques outside of Wing Chun or that violate their principles.

Again, that it is not your Wing Tsun doesn't mean it isn't Wing Chun. You can't just come on here telling them what they are doing is equivalent to adding an axe kick to their Wing Chu and still calling it Wing Chun (i.e. lying, deceiving)...

You don't realize it, but that is a big insult to their lineage, method, and the hard work they put into getting Wing Chun some recognition in Pro fighting, which is more than most embarrassments of lineages have done for the Wing Chun image. So, no, you don't get sympathy for receiving insults in return.

Common sense again. Good post

[Alan Orr]

Alan, you commented before that you haven't necessarily read every post in this thread. So please don't take this as insulting, I'm just trying to truly make sure you didn't miss it t he first time I said it:

You see, this whole long drawn out thread could have been easily avoided if Alan had simply said this 20 pages ago:

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

But he didn't. When BPWT and I were honest and said we didn't see the Wing Chun in those clips Alan could have said, "yea, it may be subtle and not obvious but the Wing Chun is there. But I can't take the time to explain what we are doing right now." But he didn't. Instead he told us we were "low level" and "clueless" and "stupid." So we kept asking, and kept getting told we "just couldn't see it" and "were stuck in a model." So foolishly we asked again, and tone and the exchange just kept going downhill. Its really quite simple. Treat people with respect and you will get respect back. Tell them they are "stupid" and "clueless" and they will just stay up in your face. BPWT and I were asking what we thought was a pretty obvious question...why didn't the action in those clips look more like Wing Chun and less like boxing?" We didn't mean that as disrespectful. We weren't saying that Alan and his goes don't do Wing Chun. We were truly trying to see how THEY were seeing Wing Chun expressed that way. And both BPWT and I tried to keep asking in as a respectful way as possible. But the response we got was not at all respectful.

And for the record, I have never in the past had this particular discussion with you or questioned what you were doing. I hope you can see that this whole long drawn out thread is as much your making as it is BPWT or I. That was my reason for reposting what I said before. No "agendas" or hidden intentions.


I'm sure you don't need post this again and again. If you want me to be the bad guy then all cool.

Twisting it into you asking a question and me shooting you down is not what happened. And really, does anyone care.

I thought you both where rude and showing disrespect. I told you we use and train wing chun but you continued to tell be otherwise. Now you changing it to .. I was just asking.


Fine. Just ask then. But I have answered questions and even filmed and posted clips

What have you done?

[Alan Orr]

Oh god here we go again the old I cant prove what I think wing chun should look like works but look here is a top level MMA guy using something like what I think it should validation argument
Ok lets examine the argument apart shall we….. jones has something like a 10 inch reach advantage on everyone he fights, his reach is longer than most peoples kicking range which is why he gets away with the above,
And even in this fight you see the problem with this kind of guard the smaller less skilled striker still clipped him with over hands and uppercuts. Try doing that with a half decent boxer your own size and you will get rocked out, I know this because its happened to me and ive done it to others …we had a few wing chun people pop through leister shootfighters in the 10 years I was there and this is how I dealt with the problem, head movement and overhand
The above also has two other issues , leaving your lead arm out their exposes your ribs and core to kicks (which isn’t a problem for jones because of his reach), and also exposes your lead leg to the takedown, again jones’s reach makes the distance too wide for the single to be really effective, and his level of wrestling makes it even harder to take him down, actually you see in this fight his opponent gets the single a couple of times because of the stance used by jones, but cant finish because of jones’s wrestling skills
unless you are jones and have a reach longer than a normal persons kicking range and are a D1 wrestler this isn’t going to work for you so please stop validating what you think should work by using a world class athletic freak…
And as an aside what does jones do when he gets clipped by the overhand in that fight?, he covers up like alans guys do…


Good post bro

[BPWT..]

It's when you and KPM keep suggesting that what they do is not "straight up" Wing Chun, but something modified to suit the MMA environment. That is saying what they're doing isn't Wing Chun. See your most recent "incorporating axe kicks" example.

To be honest, if what they are doing was modified to suit MMA, it wouldn't bother me. If they say it isn't, that's cool too - but then people have asked for some details that would explain it as such. Alan said he didn't want to "teach his system" here on the forum. Which was not really what I was asking. I think anyone can see this if they look at the posts, honestly.

The only point I am pressing is that is someone says 'What we do is Wing Chun, it is not modified or adjusted, etc, it is our Wing Chun,' then on a discussion forum it is hardly an insult to then ask those people to explain in more detail so we can understand that better.

The axe kick example I was giving was simply to point out (to you) that the end result of a fight is not what is being questioned here. You said how can what the CSL guys do be 'compromised' from a Wing Chun perspective if they are knocking people out. I replied that the knock out is not the issue, but rather what was used to get it. I want to understand what they used. (to add, I didn't say that their Wing Chun is compromised - I asked them to explain how it is not. I've been trying to word these things as nicely as I can - so that it doesn't get people all uptight)

So I gave you another example. A boxer, Tyson, head butting someone. The head butt might knock the other guy out, but was he using boxing by doing the head butt. I think the answer is obviously "no."

So if I see sparring that has punching and a guard position that appears to me to be more based on boxing than Wing Chun methods, I ask how those punches and guard fit into Alan's system. It's hardly an insulting question. I am not saying Alan is cr@p, not saying his system is cr@p, not saying he doesn't have knowledge or skill... I am just asking him to explain something I cannot see, so that if I am wrong, I can see why I am wrong.

Let me put it this way. In your WSLVT you guys train hard to have a particular elbow position. If I saw you sparring and throughout that I saw you using almost exclusively a very different elbow position, would it be insulting for me to say to you, "LFJ, I really can't see in your sparring the WSLVT elbow work that you train. The elbow positioning you were just using, how does that fit into your WSLVT training? It looks different, but does it fit into your system's concepts and methods? If so, how?"

Would you say that I was insulting you, your teacher, your system and your hard work in training? :rolleyes:

If so, you have pretty thin skin, and you're rather easily offended, IMO.

You on the other hand, say things like "But unlike LTWT, CSLWC is not just a stylized way of getting your ass kicked," and that, of course, is a rather obvious insult and shows that you'd rather be petty and not engage in actually discussing something.

[Frost]

Many valid points! Would you say that the Man Sau Wu Sau guard (or something similar to it) has more limitations/problems than not? Or would you advocate using it with certain disclaimers?
.

I would never advocate using an extended guard in an allout fight, in a potential confrontation I like to use the fence (as a bakmei guy I find the fence similar to one version of our on guard position) because you can occupy their space and keep them at arm’s length but if the confrontation become physical I prefer a cover and shield mentality unless I hit first and pr emt everything
As an aside the hung gar I have studied, as well as the bakmei and yung ying ALL have both extended guards and close cover guards, which you use depending in the situation (hell bakmei has movements that are classic crazy monkey in approach or for you chinese matial artists (combing the hair”)
The extended guard works well if all you are fighting is another southern short arm centreline art, but outside of this environment I don’t think its advisable to use it as your main guard


Exactly, when he "gets clipped." Alan's guys do this in that range too, and I have no problem with it. Like I said, it is about time frames.

The question I asked was why they would choose to assume this position before the other guy throws a punch? For a boxer, I understand it can make sense - but as a Wing Chun guy, would you want to cover to take the hits on the hands/gloves? .


Its not about wanting to do something, its about having to do something, you spar you must realise then when facing an opponent as good or better than you how fast these guys are, how quickly they can throw combinations and the angles they come from, why wait until you get clipped to use a guard when you can already be in that guard and throwing shots out of it? For me when I fight its about mimimalising space that my opponent can hit me, so I keep my elbows in, my chin tucked, my hands close and high.


If yes, how does that fit into your Wing Chun concepts? That is what I was asking..


Wing chun is but a small part of my personal art, I find some of it useful but I don’t see it as a complete art so I cant answer your question, what I can say is that alans approach is classical southern chinese art stuff as I see them

[BPWT..]

Thanks for the info. :)

When you say 'fence' are you meaning like Geoff Thompson fence's, something like this (attached)?

8376

For me, this would be like a modified Man Sau Wu position. Differences, but enough similarities to make it Wing Tsun applicable (meaning it would fit with what we would want/try to do from offence or defence).

Why wait until you get clipped to use a guard when you can already be in that guard and throwing shots out of it?

Yes, it makes some sense. Personally, I think with Wing Tsun we wouldn't want to be throwing shots (from range, rather than close) if our hands are up by our heads, as many of our strikes come from the elbow being in and our arms more in front of the body (as opposed to elbows tucked in, but by the side of the body, and hands by the side of the face).

For me when I fight its about mimimalising space that my opponent can hit me, so I keep my elbows in, my chin tucked, my hands close and high.

I think we're looking to minimise space too, but more the space in front - so maybe this is a conceptual different between Wing Chun/Wing Tsun and the arts you study? Edit: To add, I think this attached photo is a good example of minimising space - and similar in that respect to Man/Wu.

[BPWT..]

Ummm... probably I should try and 'minimise' these photos. :D

[Frost]

Thanks for the info. :)

When you say 'fence' are you meaning like Geoff Thompson fence's, something like this (attached)?

8376

For me, this would be like a modified Man Sau Wu position. Differences, but enough similarities to make it Wing Tsun applicable (meaning it would fit with what we would want/try to do from offence or defence).

Why wait until you get clipped to use a guard when you can already be in that guard and throwing shots out of it?

Yes, it makes some sense. Personally, I think with Wing Tsun we wouldn't want to be throwing shots (from range, rather than close) if our hands are up by our heads, as many of our strikes come from the elbow being in and our arms more in front of the body (as opposed to elbows tucked in, but by the side of the body, and hands by the side of the face).

For me when I fight its about mimimalising space that my opponent can hit me, so I keep my elbows in, my chin tucked, my hands close and high.

I think we're looking to minimise space too, but more the space in front - so maybe this is a conceptual different between Wing Chun/Wing Tsun and the arts you study? Edit: To add, I think this attached photo is a good example of minimising space - and similar in that respect to Man/Wu.

I have studied wing chun (not as long as some here but the time was in years rather than months) , my current sifu’s first art he learned and taught was wing chun so I understand a little about it
And both hung gar and bak mei (and pretty much all southern and hakka arts I have seen) also seek to occupy the centre and the space in front of them , BUT this tends to work best when your opponent also thinks a similar way and is not there only option

Case in point hung gar used to look a lot like wing chun, if you look at the start of the pillar forms you will see the same stance, same centre space occupation, and so on, yet when the Lama Pai master turned up in canton and basically beat everyone up and became the number one tiger and fighter in the province with long arm techniques and a none bridging aproach WFH realised something was missing so studied with this gentleman, added in the longer arm movements footwork and slipping movements into his hung gar and it became more well-rounded as a result

I personally think wing chun as taught by the majority is an incomplete art, I see what alan does as being very similar to the southern arts I know (this is my opinion only) but is what he does how wing chun should look like in a fight against an opponent not doing wing chun and who is skilled….., well to be honest we don’t have anything to compare it to do we so its hard to say he is wrong and others are right….….

[Frost]

Ummm... probably I should try and 'minimise' these photos. :D

Yes that’s the fence, I use it to keep distance and monitor my opponent in space in a non-threatening manner, and to trigger a response if the opponent touches my arm, difference is if he is in a guard and coming towards me to hit my I wouldn’t be in that position because the fights gone past passive aggressive talk straight into hitting and then I want a proper guard
As I said it looks a lot like a lot of different guards in southern arts, but those other arts also have other guards to hit out of, and according to alans version of wing chun they do too

[BPWT..]

As I said it looks a lot like a lot of different guards in southern arts, but those other arts also have other guards to hit out of, and according to alans version of wing chun they do too

Yes, this is part of what I am trying to understand better.

And thanks for the info on hung gar and bak mei, interesting stuff.

[Wayfaring]

I mean this: if a Wing Chun guy used an axe kick to someone's head, that kick might well have compromised his Wing Chun body method, his Wing Chun structure - maybe it would be in conflict with his Wing Chun concepts.

If the kick knocks the other guy out cold, that's a great result! But was it a kick using Wing Chun's methods? The result (positive) of the kick isn't the issue.


For me, this would be a YES. Axe kicks in sparring - YES. But only on Fridays, as that is my "bring back the 80's" time I am allowed to do that with my training partners. And that is sometimes followed with "I can't believe you actually landed that sh1z on me" However other times I look much more RexKwonDo :D:D:D

I'm sorry. We were in the middle of compromising Wing Chun?

Carry on.

[tc101]

Oh god here we go again the old I cant prove what I think wing chun should look like works but look here is a top level MMA guy using something like what I think it should validation argument

Very good. It is so funny. They point to non wing chun people who are fighting and use them as examples of what they think wing chun should look like. But then when they have real wing chun people really fighting and being successful they don't like what they see. The non wing chun person uses wing chun when they fight and the wing chun person uses non wing chun when he fights. It's crazy.

[BPWT..]

They point to non wing chun people who are fighting and use them as examples of what they think wing chun should look like.

Who pointed to non Wing Chun people and used them as an example of what Wing Chun should look like?

I pointed to something to illustrate an idea.

[Alan Orr]

Very good. It is so funny. They point to non wing chun people who are fighting and use them as examples of what they think wing chun should look like. But then when they have real wing chun people really fighting and being successful they don't like what they see. The non wing chun person uses wing chun when they fight and the wing chun person uses non wing chun when he fights. It's crazy.

I'm happy to see I'm not the only crazy one lol

[Alan Orr]

Nope. I said I can't see the Wing Chun in the sparring clip, for example, and said what I saw look more akin to two boxers sparring. I ask them if they could explain how what is going on is from their Wing Chun methods.

More insults and name calling came than explanation, and Alan said he didn't want to waste the time explaining. Why you're throwing in insults too is beyond me.

You were the same on the Kevin/Obasi thread - arguing a point with more insults than explanation, though by the end you did seem to admit that there wasn't too much you could say in Kevin's defense (though you didn't start that way).

As Glenn pointed out - different opinions don't need to be taken as insults. Heck, you're doing your best to actually insult me and I don't give a cr@p.


I have posted examples and answered questions. You then asked about our structure which is a whole book of information. So no I don't have time to explain that to you.

Insults? Stop playing on this. You where rude about what you could and couldn't see. I said if you can't see it then you have a lower level of understanding of wing chun - just my opinion not an insults - just like you said your not insulting my wing chub fighters by saying where just using boxing or mma.

[Alan Orr]

It's when you and KPM keep suggesting that what they do is not "straight up" Wing Chun, but something modified to suit the MMA environment. That is saying what they're doing isn't Wing Chun. See your most recent "incorporating axe kicks" example.

You continually challenging people to "prove" their tactics conform to the model of Wing Chun is a way to challenge them against your opinion that it isn't in fact Wing Chun. To be honest, it's not just a matter of you showing interest in their method, you actually believe they are doing something extra that is not Wing Chun and want to press the point.

Good post !

[Alan Orr]

This was my post - sharing the success of wing chun training!

I even said at the start that for sure some will not see the wing chun. As I know some styles are very focused on seeing the training drills as the application. Which I am trying to show people is not always the case.



Best Wing Chun KO in MMA - Iron Wolves Fighter Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun
Hi Guys

This my fighter Josh 4-0 PRO mma with a big KO!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RekowrObGTI

Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun teacher Alan Orr's student Josh Kaldani lands a knockdown in the first round and the best Wing Chun punch KO in MMA in the second round.

The Iron Wolves Team is lead by Alan Orr and has for many years been putting CSL Wing Chun to test in the Cage and Ring.

Some people will ask where is the Wing Chun as they think you should see basic training drills. In application you see the result of our training - power, structure of movement, timing, positional control, angles of punches. You will see our CSL Chinese Boxing Skills. Wing Chun is Chinese Boxing.

MMA is Mixed Martial Arts so we train the arts we need.

Stand up -
Alan Orr is a Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun 8th Degree Black Belt under his Master Robert Chu

Ground game
Alan Orr is a Black Belt in BJJ under his Master World Champion Leo Negao

Also Alan has a background in Catch Wrestling. plus some training in Sambo and Judo.



SIGN UP to received FREE DVD Training download. Coming soon from -

http://www.alanorrwingchunacademy.com/

http://www.alanorr.com/
www.alanorr.com

[KPM]

Very good. It is so funny. They point to non wing chun people who are fighting and use them as examples of what they think wing chun should look like. But then when they have real wing chun people really fighting and being successful they don't like what they see. The non wing chun person uses wing chun when they fight and the wing chun person uses non wing chun when he fights. It's crazy.

No, the crazy thing is that you've missed the point entirely! :rolleyes: Alan agreeing with you suggests he has missed the point as well. Oh well. I think its pretty obvious at this point that each side has been talking past each other, not seeing each others points and still going downhill. Time to end this thread.

[Alan Orr]

No, the crazy thing is that you've missed the point entirely! :rolleyes: Alan agreeing with you suggests he has missed the point as well. Oh well. I think its pretty obvious at this point that each side has been talking past each other, not seeing each others points and still going downhill. Time to end this thread.

We see your points. We don't agree with them. No problem with that. The thread has continued as you keep posting the same thing. Just maybe it's not us missing the point at all.

[LFJ]

You said how can what the CSL guys do be 'compromised' from a Wing Chun perspective if they are knocking people out. I replied that the knock out is not the issue, but rather what was used to get it.

And you compared what they used to a 100% non-Wing Chun technique, the axe kick. You are saying they used something other than Wing Chun. Come on...


So I gave you another example. A boxer, Tyson, head butting someone. The head butt might knock the other guy out, but was he using boxing by doing the head butt. I think the answer is obviously "no."

How is this not saying "the answer is obviously no" to whether or not they're using Wing Chun in their fights?! That's exactly what you're saying, but you keep trying to deny it. You're telling them they aren't using Wing Chun and challenging them to prove they are. That's your (and KPM's) entire participation in this thread... and you expect to be shown respect and to be given answers??


Let me put it this way. In your WSLVT you guys train hard to have a particular elbow position. If I saw you sparring and throughout that I saw you using almost exclusively a very different elbow position, would it be insulting for me to say to you, "LFJ, I really can't see in your sparring the WSLVT elbow work that you train. The elbow positioning you were just using, how does that fit into your WSLVT training? It looks different, but does it fit into your system's concepts and methods? If so, how?"

Would you say that I was insulting you, your teacher, your system and your hard work in training? :rolleyes:

I would reply the same way Alan did, by saying you don't understand VT. I don't know what "particular elbow position" you're talking about. We have a particular usage of the elbow, very similar or the same in many cases to how it's used in CSL Wing Chun. You wouldn't be able to spot it because you don't understand it.


You on the other hand, say things like "But unlike LTWT, CSLWC is not just a stylized way of getting your ass kicked," and that, of course, is a rather obvious insult and shows that you'd rather be petty and not engage in actually discussing something.

You're more concerned with what they look like when they knock someone out than the fact that they're knocking people out! Your interest is in not compromising a "Wing Chun posture". So, yeah, you want a stylized way of getting your ass kicked.

[LFJ]

My bad, wrong romanization it's not Chou it's Chao 超 it means to jump over, bound (bounce) or overtake.

Thought so. Thanks! :)

[Alan Orr]

And you compared what they used to a 100% non-Wing Chun technique, the axe kick. You are saying they used something other than Wing Chun. Come on...



How is this not saying "the answer is obviously no" to whether or not they're using Wing Chun in their fights?! That's exactly what you're saying, but you keep trying to deny it. You're telling them they aren't using Wing Chun and challenging them to prove they are. That's your (and KPM's) entire participation in this thread... and you expect to be shown respect and to be given answers??



I would reply the same way Alan did, by saying you don't understand VT. I don't know what "particular elbow position" you're talking about. We have a particular usage of the elbow, very similar or the same in many cases to how it's used in CSL Wing Chun. You wouldn't be able to spot it because you don't understand it.



You're more concerned with what they look like when they knock someone out than the fact that they're knocking people out! Your interest is in not compromising a "Wing Chun posture". So, yeah, you want a stylized way of getting your ass kicked.


Can we make it any clearer. I hope that is enough.

[BPWT..]

Well, probably we should all agree to disagree and let this thread die a death - it kind of did that a while ago.

Certainly, I will make a point of reading carefully what is posted in future so that I'm not misunderstanding - but other people should really do the same.


@Alan: I have never said what you do is not Wing Chun. I have said I can't always see it, but I do see what looks to be other influences (namely boxing). I asked for some explanation. Like I said, if certain questions are an insult to people then perhaps those people shouldn't be on an online discussion forum.

Saying someone is low-level is an insult, however. You also called people stupid, the walking dead, etc. I don't really care that you come here and insult me because I ask you some questions, but please quit pretending that you aren't doing it.

Good luck with your future fights.

@LFJ. I know you're based in China, but I don't know where. I have a friend there who now studies a non-Yip Man lineage, but he also has extensive experience with the LTWT method from Hong Kong. Very friendly guy - crazy about Wing Chun. If you ever feel like learning more about some of the things we've been discussing over these months from a LT perspective, and if you fancy meeting up with someone who is always happy to meet new WC/VT/WT people, PM me. He's met many Wing Chunners from many lineages, and even spent a solid 3 weeks with someone who learned directly with WSL - so that he could understand that version of YM's WCK a little better. So for lots of reasons I'm sure you'd have fun with the guy.

[Alan Orr]

Well, probably we should all agree to disagree and let this thread die a death - it kind of did that a while ago.

Certainly, I will make a point of reading carefully what is posted in future so that I'm not misunderstanding - but other people should really do the same.


@Alan: I have never said what you do is not Wing Chun. I have said I can't always see it, but I do see what looks to be other influences (namely boxing). I asked for some explanation. Like I said, if certain questions are an insult to people then perhaps those people shouldn't be on an online discussion forum.

Saying someone is low-level is an insult, however. You also called people stupid, the walking dead, etc. I don't really care that you come here and insult me because I ask you some questions, but please quit pretending that you aren't doing it.

Good luck with your future fights.

@LFJ. I know you're based in China, but I don't know where. I have a friend there who now studies a non-Yip Man lineage, but he also has extensive experience with the LTWT method from Hong Kong. Very friendly guy - crazy about Wing Chun. If you ever feel like learning more about some of the things we've been discussing over these months from a LT perspective, and if you fancy meeting up with someone who is always happy to meet new WC/VT/WT people, PM me. He's met many Wing Chunners from many lineages, and even spent a solid 3 weeks with someone who learned directly with WSL - so that he could understand that version of YM's WCK a little better. So for lots of reasons I'm sure you'd have fun with the guy.


You just can't stop can you. You say again you not saying it's not wing chun But .. It looks like boxing lol

No insult then

I'm a very proud Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun fighter ! My team are CSL Wing Chun fighters so when I tell you what we are using is our system then that's what it is!

Wing Chun is a Chinese boxing style!

You wonder why I get ****ed off having to listen to .. I think .. It looks like .. It could be ... It might be

I can see why you hide you name. Makes it easy to be stupid and get a away with it. Yes i refered to your as stupid as I have answered the things asked. But you just don't listen to the answers given. Now you are doing it all again.

I have received tons of emails saying wow great to see wing chun applied rather than drills and semi sparring. Plus loads added people that can't the wing chun must be ..

So it's not an insult it's a general opinion just as your have you opinion.

[BPWT..]

You just can't stop can you. You say again you not saying it's not wing chun But .. It looks like boxing lol

No insult then

I'm a very proud Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun fighter ! My team are CSL Wing Chun fighters so when I tell you what we are using is our system then that's what it is!

Wing Chun is a Chinese boxing style!

You wonder why I get ****ed off having to listen to .. I think .. It looks like .. It could be ... It might be

I can see why you hide you name. Makes it easy to be stupid and get a away with it. Yes i refered to your as stupid as I have answered the things asked. But you just don't listen to the answers given. Now you are doing it all again.

I have received tons of emails saying wow great to see wing chun applied rather than drills and semi sparring. Plus loads added people that can't the wing chun must be ..

So it's not an insult it's a general opinion just as your have you opinion.

:rolleyes: Do you understand what the word 'looks' means?

Have fun reading all your emails. I hope you read them more carefully than you do the posts here. :eek:

[Alan Orr]

:rolleyes: Do you understand what the word 'looks' means?

Have fun reading all your emails. I hope you read them more carefully than you do the posts here. :eek:

Yes of course I do. I only post on what I know first hand.

Do if I have trained in a style I feel I can make a comment

If someone tells me something and I don't see it and haven't trained it, then I go and check it out or I just keep my mouth closed.

[chris bougeard]

passive aggressive
A defense mechanism that allows people who aren't comfortable being openly aggressive get what they want under the guise of still trying to be the good guy . They want their way, but they also want everyone to still like them.

"Alan I never said you didn't do Wing Chun, but it doesn't look like Wing Chun"

[BPWT..]

@ Alan: I can form an opinion regarding US gun laws without having to visit America and getting shot. I'm sure you watch sports events and form an opinion on what you're seeing. You make it sound like a person can't express an opinion unless they are that pro sportsman.

@ Chris: I have no desire to be the 'good guy' or the 'bad guy'... we're not in the school playground. :rolleyes: I saw a clip, I commented on it. Apparently that is enough to be seen as an insult to all CSL Wing Chun guys. A few guys with a few questions, as opposed to 'hundreds' of emails of support. And yet everyone's panties are all twisted up.

Like I said, it beggars belief.

[Alan Orr]

@ Alan: I can form an opinion regarding US gun laws without having to visit America and getting shot. I'm sure you watch sports events and form an opinion on what you're seeing. You make it sound like a person can't express an opinion unless they are that pro sportsman.

@ Chris: I have no desire to be the 'good guy' or the 'bad guy'... we're not in the school playground. :rolleyes: I saw a clip, I commented on it. Apparently that is enough to be seen as an insult to all CSL Wing Chun guys. A few guys with a few questions, as opposed to 'hundreds' of emails of support. And yet everyone's panties are all twisted up.

Like I said, it beggars belief.

You can have any opinion you like. It doesn't mean it's right or that it will be respected or agreed with. Start posting your clips and maybe you gain some respect rather that you loaded statements

[BPWT..]

I can say with complete honestly, Alan, that I am NOT looking to earn your respect. I leave the videos to the people who are quite happy posting them (though not happy having others comment on them).

[Alan Orr]

I can say with complete honestly, Alan, that I am NOT looking to earn your respect. I leave the videos to the people who are quite happy posting them (though not happy having others comment on them).

I am more than happy with people having a view. I never asked for you opinion. I listen to people when they have something or interest or value. Knowing who they are helps, as least it gives an idea of what experience they may have or not

[tc101]

I can say with complete honestly, Alan, that I am NOT looking to earn your respect. I leave the videos to the people who are quite happy posting them (though not happy having others comment on them).

You really don't understand why he may not be happy with the comments? He posts video clips of his wing chun trained fighters PERFORMING that is fighting and what comments does he get? Things along the lines of well he's a good fighter only that's not wing chun.

Here's the thing THAT comment implies that 1you know what wing chun should look like and 2 Orr and his team don't and therefore 3 you know wing chun better than he does. Right? He should be happy with that?

My perspective is that 1 is not true you and other commenters don't know what wing chun looks like. You know what the wing chun model looks like and you confuse the model with application. This confusion comes from not trying to fight with your model. If you did then you'd see the model does't work in fighting UNLESS you are sparring with wing chun clones or people who you simply outclass. This is why you are asked about your videos. You see while you argue that you know what wing chun should look like you can't show anyone fighting or sparring non wing chun fighters and that includes yourself who looks like you think they should. Except maybe non wing chun fighters lol.

The perspective I see again and again on this forum is that well I may not be able to do it but I know and understand it. It is like they think the measure of wing chun can be determined by a written standardized test. My perspective is that the measure of your wing chun is what you can do not what you think you know or think you understand. Having someone who can't do it define how it should be done is lol funny.

[BPWT..]

tc101,

It's becoming tiresome (for me and all of you), for me to keep stating what's what.

Your 2 and 3 points are inaccurate because 1 is wrong.

Regarding 1, I know what 'my' Wing Chun is. Because I didn't see it in his clip, and because 'I' think most Wing Chun has common attributes, I said 'I' can't see the Wing Chun. I said that to 'me' it 'looks' more like boxing. That is why I asked about things in relation to concepts and principles and strategy; how it fits into 'their' Wing Chun, and where we can find this in relation to Hawkins Cheung WCK, Yuen Kay San WCK, etc; the arts that make up Robert Chu's WCK, which is what Alan teaches.

Saying what 'I' see is not an attack or condemnation, especially as I made it clear I was asking questions so I could better understand it from 'their' perspective. The name calling that came just makes it more confrontational.

Look at these sentences. Pretend I am a policeman :D

1.That man 'is' a criminal.
2.That man looks to 'me' like a criminal. Let's question him to ascertain some facts.

Disclaimer: no, I am not calling Alan a criminal. No, I am not a copper. No, I will not post video clips to show I am not a policeman or a criminal myself. ;)

Anyone reading this ugly monster of a thread can see, quite clearly, what I was saying. Truly, I'm done trying to explain it. Have fun.

[LFJ]

2.That man looks to 'me' like a criminal. Let's question him to ascertain some facts.

Where I'm from you need reasonable suspicion to detain someone for questioning. I think Alan is free to go.

[Alan Orr]

tc101,

It's becoming tiresome (for me and all of you), for me to keep stating what's what.

Your 2 and 3 points are inaccurate because 1 is wrong.

Regarding 1, I know what 'my' Wing Chun is. Because I didn't see it in his clip, and because 'I' think most Wing Chun has common attributes, I said 'I' can't see the Wing Chun. I said that to 'me' it 'looks' more like boxing. That is why I asked about things in relation to concepts and principles and strategy; how it fits into 'their' Wing Chun, and where we can find this in relation to Hawkins Cheung WCK, Yuen Kay San WCK, etc; the arts that make up Robert Chu's WCK, which is what Alan teaches.

Saying what 'I' see is not an attack or condemnation, especially as I made it clear I was asking questions so I could better understand it from 'their' perspective. The name calling that came just makes it more confrontational.

Look at these sentences. Pretend I am a policeman :D

1.That man 'is' a criminal.
2.That man looks to 'me' like a criminal. Let's question him to ascertain some facts.

Disclaimer: no, I am not calling Alan a criminal. No, I am not a copper. No, I will not post video clips to show I am not a policeman or a criminal myself. ;)

Anyone reading this ugly monster of a thread can see, quite clearly, what I was saying. Truly, I'm done trying to explain it. Have fun.

No we don't know who you are at all

The man with no name wants full bios and back ground checks before he can decide if he can see wing chun in my guys fights lol

Your question on CSL system has been explained in interviews and articles all on the web.

[Alan Orr]

You really don't understand why he may not be happy with the comments? He posts video clips of his wing chun trained fighters PERFORMING that is fighting and what comments does he get? Things along the lines of well he's a good fighter only that's not wing chun.

Here's the thing THAT comment implies that 1you know what wing chun should look like and 2 Orr and his team don't and therefore 3 you know wing chun better than he does. Right? He should be happy with that?

My perspective is that 1 is not true you and other commenters don't know what wing chun looks like. You know what the wing chun model looks like and you confuse the model with application. This confusion comes from not trying to fight with your model. If you did then you'd see the model does't work in fighting UNLESS you are sparring with wing chun clones or people who you simply outclass. This is why you are asked about your videos. You see while you argue that you know what wing chun should look like you can't show anyone fighting or sparring non wing chun fighters and that includes yourself who looks like you think they should. Except maybe non wing chun fighters lol.

The perspective I see again and again on this forum is that well I may not be able to do it but I know and understand it. It is like they think the measure of wing chun can be determined by a written standardized test. My perspective is that the measure of your wing chun is what you can do not what you think you know or think you understand. Having someone who can't do it define how it should be done is lol funny.


I couldn't have said it better! Thank you

[Wayfaring]

Look at these sentences. Pretend I am a policeman :D

1.That man 'is' a criminal.
2.That man looks to 'me' like a criminal. Let's question him to ascertain some facts.



The problem with this is that while #2 is not technically insulting, on the internet the phrasing looks so similar to #1 that the general public not reading with that level of distinction will take that and form an opinion like "CSL is not really WCK it's more boxing". So Alan has to address this for his arts sake to show the general public that there is more to his WCK than hand shapes and to show that you are being obtuse because you felt insulted when viewing hand shapes was called a lower level of understanding.

[KPM]

The problem with this is that while #2 is not technically insulting, on the internet the phrasing looks so similar to #1 that the general public not reading with that level of distinction will take that and form an opinion like "CSL is not really WCK it's more boxing". So Alan has to address this for his arts sake to show the general public that there is more to his WCK than hand shapes and to show that you are being obtuse because you felt insulted when viewing hand shapes was called a lower level of understanding.

Well WF, I think you are partially right. Obviously lots of people have mistaken the intent of #2 as being the same as #1. That has offended Alan, which was not anyone's intent. And I apologize to Alan for being part of that. As far as him "address this for his arts sake to show....", he hasn't done that. Really, this thing is up to more than 30 pages now. Wouldn't it have been much much easier with far less hard-feelings and talking past each other if Alan had simply explained how that list of biomechanical features from Josh sparring in that clip are based upon CSL WCK concepts? I can see that BPWT and I weren't asking the question in a very effective way initially. But we have obviously tried to change that in recent pages and ask it more respectively. But still no response. Over 30 pages and so far Dave is the ONLY one to try and match Josh's movement with WCK concepts. I know, I know...someone will say "why should Alan explain ANYTHING to you guys!" And you're right! He doesn't have to explain anything to us! He could have said "sorry, but I don't feel the need to explain this" and ended his participation in this thread on page 5. But he didn't. Again, wouldn't it have been simpler just to indulge us and answer the question rather than to continue this cr@p back and forth? Alan said explaining their structure was not a few sentences. Well, just look at how many sentences he has written in the back and forth bickering! We could have ended this 20 pages ago! But I'm sure that, once again, people will not see it from this perspective and place all the blame on "one side" of this whole thing. I don't know why I keep letting myself get drawn back into this over and over. Hopefully this is it for me.

[Alan Orr]

The problem with this is that while #2 is not technically insulting, on the internet the phrasing looks so similar to #1 that the general public not reading with that level of distinction will take that and form an opinion like "CSL is not really WCK it's more boxing". So Alan has to address this for his arts sake to show the general public that there is more to his WCK than hand shapes and to show that you are being obtuse because you felt insulted when viewing hand shapes was called a lower level of understanding.

Thank you taking time to add your view. It helps to hear that others understand me.

[Alan Orr]

Well WF, I think you are partially right. Obviously lots of people have mistaken the intent of #2 as being the same as #1. That has offended Alan, which was not anyone's intent. And I apologize to Alan for being part of that. As far as him "address this for his arts sake to show....", he hasn't done that. Really, this thing is up to more than 30 pages now. Wouldn't it have been much much easier with far less hard-feelings and talking past each other if Alan had simply explained how that list of biomechanical features from Josh sparring in that clip are based upon CSL WCK concepts? I can see that BPWT and I weren't asking the question in a very effective way initially. But we have obviously tried to change that in recent pages and ask it more respectively. But still no response. Over 30 pages and so far Dave is the ONLY one to try and match Josh's movement with WCK concepts. I know, I know...someone will say "why should Alan explain ANYTHING to you guys!" And you're right! He doesn't have to explain anything to us! He could have said "sorry, but I don't feel the need to explain this" and ended his participation in this thread on page 5. But he didn't. Again, wouldn't it have been simpler just to indulge us and answer the question rather than to continue this cr@p back and forth? Alan said explaining their structure was not a few sentences. Well, just look at how many sentences he has written in the back and forth bickering! We could have ended this 20 pages ago! But I'm sure that, once again, people will not see it from this perspective and place all the blame on "one side" of this whole thing. I don't know why I keep letting myself get drawn back into this over and over. Hopefully this is it for me.


Okay thank you for apologizing . Let's not then add why and who etc and restart it all again.

I'm happy to answer questions. Maybe some answers would be to long for a forum chat. I did film 3 extra clips about bridging, punching angles and power connection and also hidden skills. So I have made an effort by filming and loading clips for everyone.

I'm not going to explain my whole teachers system as it would take a book. I am writing a book on it and 40,000 words in - so it's not going to a short post.


The bridging clip I posted I talk about punching and making bridge control with and without contact.

The punching clip I posted I talk about joint connection and linking and delinking are key skills.

The hidden skills I posted I talk about the body structure

So check them out. I will add more clips on move areas each week on my you tube channel

[KPM]

Let's not then add why and who etc and restart it all again.

Agreed! :)

I did film 3 extra clips about bridging, punching angles and power connection and also hidden skills. So I have made an effort by filming and loading clips for everyone.

Yes! Thank you for that! I look forward to seeing further videos. I do check your youtube page regularly.


. I am writing a book on it and 40,000 words in - so it's not going to a short post.

Put me on the pre-order list! I look forward to seeing it!


So check them out. I will add more clips on move areas each week on my you tube channel

I will do that! Thanks Alan!

[Alan Orr]

Let's not then add why and who etc and restart it all again.

Agreed! :)

I did film 3 extra clips about bridging, punching angles and power connection and also hidden skills. So I have made an effort by filming and loading clips for everyone.

Yes! Thank you for that! I look forward to seeing further videos. I do check your youtube page regularly.


. I am writing a book on it and 40,000 words in - so it's not going to a short post.

Put me on the pre-order list! I look forward to seeing it!


So check them out. I will add more clips on move areas each week on my you tube channel

I will do that! Thanks Alan!


Thank you.

What would be your main question ? I will film the answer for you guys next week

[KPM]

Thank you.

What would be your main question ? I will film the answer for you guys next week

Personally, I would love to see you do a video showing how the sparring we have seen here that may look somewhat like western boxing to those unfamiliar with CSL WCK is actually expressing your Wing Chun. Demo the training form going to application under pressure, or show some free-fighting that doesn't necessarily "look" like Wing Chun, and then back up and explain how this is coming directly from the way you train your Wing Chun. Show a direct match between training and fighting. Then whenever the question comes up again, just refer to the video! :)

[Alan Orr]

Personally, I would love to see you do a video showing how the sparring we have seen here that may look somewhat like western boxing to those unfamiliar with CSL WCK is actually expressing your Wing Chun. Demo the training form going to application under pressure, or show some free-fighting that doesn't necessarily "look" like Wing Chun, and then back up and explain how this is coming directly from the way you train your Wing Chun. Show a direct match between training and fighting. Then whenever the question comes up again, just refer to the video! :)

I have posted a video showing some of that already.

http://youtu.be/yj9mTuia70A

But I will do another showing western boxing and CSL wing chun Chinese boxing and what is different.

Lots of sparring breakdowns are coming but I limit what I put out as my guys are still fighting

[KPM]

I have posted a video showing some of that already.

http://youtu.be/yj9mTuia70A

But I will do another showing western boxing and CSL wing chun Chinese boxing and what is different.

Lots of sparring breakdowns are coming but I limit what I put out as my guys are still fighting

Understood. Thanks again Alan!

[kung fu fighter]

I will do another showing western boxing and CSL wing chun Chinese boxing and what is different.

I believe it's the CSL wing chun body structure such as linking and de-linking that differentiate it from western boxing if I remember correctly.

[Hendrik]

I believe it's the CSL wing chun body structure that differentiate it from western boxing if I remember correctly.

Robert and me are research brothers. CSLWCK is core in ancient Wck with modern realistic evolution.

[Wayfaring]

I have posted a video showing some of that already.

http://youtu.be/yj9mTuia70A

But I will do another showing western boxing and CSL wing chun Chinese boxing and what is different.

Lots of sparring breakdowns are coming but I limit what I put out as my guys are still fighting

To further explain this point to those who don't have exposure to MMA fight teams, probably the most interesting thing for this forum would be to see video clips of unrestricted sparring from the top fighters on the team.

However, that would also be the most interesting thing that an opponent who has signed a fight contract would want to see to help plan their training camp.

[kung fu fighter]

Robert and me are research brothers. CSLWCK is core in ancient Wck with modern realistic evolution.
The CSLWCK fighters seem to be using body type power generation rather than the close range force line type. They use the body type wing chun power generation with MMA tools such as low muai thai leg kicks, boxing bouncing footwork and bobing, wrestling and BJJ instead of protecting their centerline with pure wing chun tools/application. if you take a look at Josh's fight his opponent was able to clinch and take him down due to the fact that he left his centerline wide open while throwing wild swinging punches.

[Hendrik]

The CSLWCK fighters seem to be using body type power generation rather than the close range force line type. They use the body type wing chun power generation with MMA tools such as low muai thai leg kicks, boxing bouncing footwork and bobing, wrestling and BJJ instead of protecting their centerline with pure wing chun tools/application. if you take a look at Josh's fight his opponent was able to clinch and take him down due to the fact that he left his centerline wide open while throwing wild swinging punches.


You are right.

However,
There are many ways to implement things and different level.
CSLWCK is a system with many different elements which has both body and force line type.

[kung fu fighter]

There are many ways to implement things and different level. CSLWCK is a system with many different elements.
Hendrik, Would you say the ancient wck tools/applications are outdated and needs to evolve into What modern CSLWCK fighters are doing? Personally I've never found a need to change them, they've always served me well in stand up fighting.

[Hendrik]

Hendrik, Would you say the ancient wck tools/applications are outdated and needs to evolve into What modern CSLWCK fighters are doing? Personally I've never found a need to change them, they've always served me well in stand up fighting.


Nothing outdate.

But based on time, person, and condition, things needs to adapt.


For example, we now know the Wck 1848. In 1860 who has the time to train the 1848 way?
So, things needs to adjust for its needs.


Think this way, how many decades have you in Wck? How many is Josh?
I tell people about snake engine and force flow in this forum, however how many think I am nuts?


Robert has the ancient core . So, the rest is his decision on how to evolve his lineage .



Next time we meet again, I will show you my weak old man way which I have evolved into so that you can play with :D

[kung fu fighter]

Nothing outdate.

But based on time, person, and condition, things needs to adapt.

For example, we now know the Wck 1848. In 1860 who has the time to train the 1848 way?
So, things needs to adjust for its needs.

Think this way, how many decades have you in Wck? How many is Josh?

I tell people about snake engine and force flow in this forum, however how many think I am nuts?

The key is Robert has the ancient core . So, the rest is his decision on how to evolve his lineage .[/QUOTE]

ok, it makes sense now.


If you meet me again, then I will show you my weak old man way which I have evolved into :D
Sounds dangerous, i look forward to seeing it, you know what they say with kung fu the older the better :D

[Hendrik]

I tell people about snake engine and force flow in this forum, however how many think I am nuts?

The key is Robert has the ancient core . So, the rest is his decision on how to evolve his lineage .

ok, it makes sense now.


Sounds dangerous, i look forward to seeing it, you know what they say with kung fu the older the better :D[/QUOTE]


I am getting old. These days I see more alternative and respect variation then when I was young.

Say , You have decades of background, Jim has decades of background , you both have thousands of hours of development, it is not easy.

And the same snake engine even it is from me, you both will do it different. That is just natural.

[kung fu fighter]

Say , You have decades of background, Jim has decades of background , you both have thousands of hours of development, it is not easy. And the same snake engine even it is from me, you both will do it different. That is just natural.

Yes i Agree!

[tc101]

The CSLWCK fighters seem to be using body type power generation rather than the close range force line type. They use the body type wing chun power generation with MMA tools such as low muai thai leg kicks, boxing bouncing footwork and bobing, wrestling and BJJ instead of protecting their centerline with pure wing chun tools/application. if you take a look at Josh's fight his opponent was able to clinch and take him down due to the fact that he left his centerline wide open while throwing wild swinging punches.

No. Btw if Hendrik agrees with you that is proof positive you are wrong.

The kicks are wing chun the footwork wing chun the close body work wing chun only the ground is bjj. You cannot blend mt kicks which REQUIRE mt body mechanics to work with wing chun body mechanics.

Close range line force? Seriously wtf is that? Who made that up and where do people get that crazy stuff?

Wing chun fighters hit with their body just like any good fighter HAS TO.

[deejaye72]

Close range line force? Seriously wtf is that? Who made that up and where do people get that crazy stuff?

thats what i've been trying to say! and they think i'm a A-hole! well, i am a A-hole! i'm from new york i cant help it,but thats another story
hahaha:D

[kung fu fighter]

You cannot blend mt kicks which REQUIRE mt body mechanics to work with wing chun body mechanics.
Both Muai thai and CSLWCK uses body type power generation, so there is no conflict there.

[Alan Orr]

http://youtu.be/8JybRSpdFJQ

New clip showing our CSL wing chun vs Western Boxing style

This clip shows why what my guys are using in MMA is Wing Chun Chinese Boxing and not western boxing

[KPM]

http://youtu.be/8JybRSpdFJQ

New clip showing our CSL wing chun vs Western Boxing style

This clip shows why what my guys are using in MMA is Wing Chun Chinese Boxing and not western boxing

Great clip! Thanks for taking the time to do this Alan! It answers many questions brought up on this thread.

[Alan Orr]

Great clip! Thanks for taking the time to do this Alan! It answers many questions brought up on this thread.

Welcome. No problem at all