Why not have an open mind about real fighting?

[SAAMAG]

Well then Joy, please elaborate. It does no good to simply say wrong without an explanation.

Funny, I don't recall ever laying on the ground in the form...but maybe I learned a different version. Perhaps performing moves in the air does make a fighter better! Maybe the MMA's need more forms...if they did them maybe they would be able to beat wing chun guys right?

But seriously, elaborate for us how it would transpose to groundfighting, and keep in mind Im not talking about eye gouging and using elbows while down there...what Im talking about is something other then striking...how does it teach someone to excape or break a guard....to learn how to sense chokes coming on or the opponent's repositioning in preparation for a submission or choke? I'm curious now. I seem to remember movements that help us to regain our wing chun composure in the event the previous two form's motions went awry or were unsuccessful...and that's about it. Maybe I didn't spend enough time imagining how to transpose the moves into an entirely different fighting range....

Like I said before...wing chun is great for the fighting areas it's expertise lies in, and not so great for areas it does not.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Vankuen

But seriously, elaborate for us how it would transpose to groundfighting, and keep in mind Im not talking about eye gouging and using elbows while down there...what Im talking about is something other then striking...how does it teach someone to excape or break a guard....to learn how to sense chokes coming on or the opponent's repositioning in preparation for a submission or choke? I'm curious now. I seem to remember movements that help us to regain our wing chun composure in the event the previous two form's motions went awry or were unsuccessful...and that's about it. Maybe I didn't spend enough time imagining how to transpose the moves into an entirely different fighting range....

I'll bet I can answer this one way better than Joy can... and it will include a positive, useful, and specific way that WC can be used on the ground.

But I'll wait until he posts his reply first.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Vankuen brings up a good point and I have to agree in part; I do not think that Wing Chun in and of itself has ground-fighting within it. It is easy to argue that the concepts can be applied to the ground, and to a certain extent I am sure they can be. However, I believe that groundfighting needs to be explored from outside the system and then integrated into the system. In other words you can take techniques from BJJ or Judo and build upon them and mold them into a base which compliments your Wing Chun and in a sense you have simply added a new layer to the system, evolving as the need arises. But, I have yet to find anyone who claims that ground-fighting is found within the system who is able to articulate just how and where it is to be found, without drawing from without the system.

I honestly believe that we are the sum of our parts or our experiences. Wing Chun is a highly personal art and it is possible to mold it to suit your needs and your environment, you just need to balance this need with the underlying concepts of the system. Easy to say, but hard to do. One of the problems which I have noticed in some "mixed" arts is that there is no flow. You can notice a distinct shift in fighting attitude. If this happens then you have not truly integrated your "arts" you have simply mixed and matched and have no true core system or foundation upon which everything is built.

I also think that if we are honest with ourselves, we will find that the ground-fighting and other things we bring to Wing Chun are the result of our life experiences. For example, I was doing some ground-fighting back in the early 80's before BJJ became popular but mine was based on my past experince in Judo. What I ended up with was neither "pure" Wing Chun nor Judo but an integration of the two. Consider when you propose the existence of Wing Chun Ground-Fighting whether or not you may be sub-conciously drawing from a previous background in wrestling or the like to create this platform. Nothing wrong with that, it is natural and should be desired, imho. But lets be honest with ourselves and give credit where it is due.

If you honestly believe that Wing Chun, in and of itself has ground-fighting and does not need to incorporate it from outside the system; Then please give clear concise examples of where to find it within the system.

Peace,

Dave

[Phil Redmond]

James, yopu wrote:
>> . . . But, I have yet to find anyone who claims that ground-fighting is found within the system who is able to articulate just how and where it is to be found, without drawing from without the system.<<
I think that Sum Nung did ground fighting in his WC and BJJ wasn't invented then.
PR

[Sihing73]

Hi Phil,

I think that was me who said that

I would love more details regarding Sum Nung doing ground-fighting. Did he use Wing Chun or did he incorporate another art as well? Did he teach ground-fighting as part of his Wing Chun system? If so, where and how does it fit into the system?

Phil, no disrespect, but it is easy to point to examples without the specifics to detail them. I can claim that my Wing Chun has this and that and I may even be able to make some things work, but going back to my original post, is'nt this simple an outgrowth of my own personal experience, the sum of my parts so to speak? Would it be correct to say that your Wing Chun is different than that of the other members of your lineage and it is thus directly because of your life experiences?

Peace,

Dave

[sihing]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Hi Phil,

I think that was me who said that

I would love more details regarding Sum Nung doing ground-fighting. Did he use Wing Chun or did he incorporate another art as well? Did he teach ground-fighting as part of his Wing Chun system? If so, where and how does it fit into the system?

Phil, no disrespect, but it is easy to point to examples without the specifics to detail them. I can claim that my Wing Chun has this and that and I may even be able to make some things work, but going back to my original post, is'nt this simple an outgrowth of my own personal experience, the sum of my parts so to speak? Would it be correct to say that your Wing Chun is different than that of the other members of your lineage and it is thus directly because of your life experiences?

Peace,

Dave

True statements Dave. When questions started to arise regarding shoots and takedowns to my Sifu back in the mid 90's he had counters to each and everyone of them, all from the WC system, using WC techniques and concepts. Also to expand it all he explained and demonstrated WC concepts and strategies when being mounted and attacked from that angle, so in other words we learned to apply WC from standing position, to kneeling to sitting and from the standing grappling positions and mounted positions, all using WC concepts/principals and technqiues and explainations. For some reason no one believes me on this forum, I'll have to get some of that footage on line too, but have to get permission first to release the footage.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun principles and techniques are useful against attempted takedowns...but my experience has been that they have to be PART OF a bigger overall strategy and fighting moves (ie. - combined with sprawls, cross-faces, whi//ers, and so on).

Wing Chun strikes, blocks, and footwork - BY THEMSELVES - will only work in certain circumstances against takedowns...and those circumstances are limited in scope.

Against a really good wrestler/grappler who has a whole array of takedowns in his arsenal...

forget it.

Wing Chun alone is not enough.

[Kevin Bell]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KPM doesn't like the tone. LOL!

Well, in my view, a great many WCK practitioners (and we're not alone, it's the same with most TCMAs and especially the for-the-most-part-make-believe "internal" arts) suffer from a superiority complex -- they *believe* their art is great ("awesome"), superior to most other arts, provides most, if not all, the answers etc. Even some of the posts on this thread suggest WCK does certain things better than other arts, like developing "body unity". (What a joke; the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners have absolutely no body unity.) When the truth -- if we bother to look at the *evidence* -- is something altogether very different.

Wong Sheung Leung said "Wing Chun is a good horse but few can ride her." IMO there is something very profound and very true in those words. Hundreds, if not thousands, went through Yip Man's Hong Kong kwoon -- perhaps a handful ever developed any real skill. I've seen loads of WCK practitioners in my time (over 20 years) in the art, including masters, grandmasters, the so-called "top-notch" folks, etc. and very, very few (I could count them on one hand) had any decent skill (other than being "good" at chi sao or demos -- which is how, along with marketing, they sell their art). Is this evidence that WCK is a superior art? That it has all the answers?

My opinion is that if you -- not the generic "you" but *you* reading this post -- can't demonstrate under fighting conditions against skilled opposition your beliefs, in other words if you can't do it, perform it, etc., then your beliefs (or claims) whatever they are are essentially meaningless and you are deluding yourself. WCK isn't superior if you aren't a superior fighter; WCK doesn't have the answers if you don't have all the answers. And while you can believe in the tooth fairy (or that biu jee is for this or that or the other thing), proving it is something else. So far, all we have are claims, theory, etc.

KPM doesn't like the "tone"; sorry, but I don't like the "tone" I've been hearing for 20+ years from the fantasy-boxers. And what I find pathetic is the constant back-slapping among those WCK practitioners -- "we have the superior art" nonsense -- when they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Keith doesn't like being told that most people are wasting their time. Well, they are. It's like boy scouts talking about war and the things they would do or could do if they ever went to war. My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it. And if you can do it, you'll have no reticence in stepping up and proving it. Stop talking about what WCK *can* (in theory) do -- what you believe wtihout evidence -- and talk instead what you can do, what works for you (and not in chi sao or drills), etc. Of course, the only way to know what you can do is by having done it, by fighting. So, if you haven't done it, and against skilled folks, you have no real idea if you could do it or not, whether it works for you or not. Stop the nonsense.

Why don't many have an open mind about fighting? Because fighting will take one out of the safety of their cacoon of theory and belief, expose their true level of performance, and deep in their hearts (unconsciously) they know that. And they don't want to see it.

Very good post there Terence. You remember a while back i asked you if you had any more articles in the pipeline. I think you just posted it buddy.

[SAAMAG]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Wing Chun principles and techniques are useful against attempted takedowns...but my experience has been that they have to be PART OF a bigger overall strategy and fighting moves (ie. - combined with sprawls, cross-faces, whi//ers, and so on).

Wing Chun strikes, blocks, and footwork - BY THEMSELVES - will only work in certain circumstances against takedowns...and those circumstances are limited in scope.

Against a really good wrestler/grappler who has a whole array of takedowns in his arsenal...

forget it.

Wing Chun alone is not enough.

Exactly. That's what I was saying. You can use some wing chun on the ground...at certain times when in any of the positions (unless he's got your back and you are on all fours...) but this is still just striking, as wing chun is a striking art. If anyone does upa and then says it's wing chun then they're lying. Unless a wing chun master just happened to have incorperated it previously and passed it down saying it was wing chun.

[Vajramusti]

Vankuen sez:Well then Joy, please elaborate. It does no good to simply say wrong without an explanation.

Funny, I don't recall ever laying on the ground in the form...but maybe I learned a different version. Perhaps performing moves in the air does make a fighter better! Maybe the MMA's need more forms...if they did them maybe they would be able to beat wing chun guys right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
((I have expressed my judgement and opinion. Given your second paragraph - it would be a waste of my time to
elaborate. Words can point- but learning biu jee and proper development of biu jee skills with practice and experimenting with it in different situations is the key. Sarcastic chit chat gets in the way. Not a matter of "secrets"- but a nexus of right learning, understanding, practicing and applying. The secrets just reveal themselves along the way.

No- I am not talking about isolated motions -- crude eye gouging etc. And I am not talking about only doing forms.

There are fundamental differences in POVs in the recent parts of this thread... and we have not reached the stage of discussing core differences in the POVs.

Terence merely repeats the same- fight. Again, sparring is not fighting. (Sparring or fighting is not unknown territorry
in forming my POV)

Victor asks to go outside of the box- when there is no box.

And as for knifefighter- I just dont bother.

But- I agree most wing chun that I have seen- needs mma- someone should write a book on incomplete wing chun.


Step by step- wing chun develops the individual kung fu
persons body, mind and energy in a way that it can be useful standing, walking, sitting or lying down. Being able to adjust to varying situations is a key to real fighting
and sustained wing chun training develops that adjustment without making it chop suey.

I just respond now and then when I sense an unfortunate underestimation of wing chu's potential.. Wing chun is a culmination in the evolution of TCMA--- whose early roots had to do with grappling-preventing take downs and dealing with being taken down. And it is never too far from it.

Back to the usual programmed sarcasm.Not to worry- I dont take KFO too seriously. Onward through the fog. Yours and possibly mine.Cheers.))

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Vankuen sez:Well then Joy, please elaborate. It does no good to simply say wrong without an explanation.

Funny, I don't recall ever laying on the ground in the form...but maybe I learned a different version. Perhaps performing moves in the air does make a fighter better! Maybe the MMA's need more forms...if they did them maybe they would be able to beat wing chun guys right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
((I have expressed my judgement and opinion. Given your second paragraph - it would be a waste of my time to
elaborate. Words can point- but learning biu jee and proper development of biu jee skills with practice and experimenting with it in different situations is the key. Sarcastic chit chat gets in the way. Not a matter of "secrets"- but a nexus of right learning, understanding, practicing and applying. The secrets just reveal themselves along the way.

No- I am not talking about isolated motions -- crude eye gouging etc. And I am not talking about only doing forms.

There are fundamental differences in POVs in the recent parts of this thread... and we have not reached the stage of discussing core differences in the POVs.

Terence merely repeats the same- fight. Again, sparring is not fighting. (Sparring or fighting is not unknown territorry
in forming my POV)

Victor asks to go outside of the box- when there is no box.

And as for knifefighter- I just dont bother.

But- I agree most wing chun that I have seen- needs mma- someone should write a book on incomplete wing chun.


Step by step- wing chun develops the individual kung fu
persons body, mind and energy in a way that it can be useful standing, walking, sitting or lying down. Being able to adjust to varying situations is a key to real fighting
and sustained wing chun training develops that adjustment without making it chop suey.

I just respond now and then when I sense an unfortunate underestimation of wing chu's potential.. Wing chun is a culmination in the evolution of TCMA--- whose early roots had to do with grappling-preventing take downs and dealing with being taken down. And it is never too far from it.

Back to the usual programmed sarcasm.Not to worry- I dont take KFO too seriously. Onward through the fog. Yours and possibly mine.Cheers.))

WHAT A BUNCH OF NONSENSE !!!

Talk about a complete unwillingness to back up ANYTHING...

Just pay special attention to the evasion snowjob found in this part of the above post:

"...learning biu jee and proper development of biu jee skills with practice and experimenting with it in different situations is the key...Not a matter of "secrets"- but a nexus of right learning, understanding, practicing and applying. The secrets just reveal themselves along the way."

WHAT SECRETS?!

This is the kind of talk that puts Wing Chun in a bad light.

There are no secrets within bil jee that will save you from a good wrestler/grappler.

But there are a lot of people around who will tell you things like that...but they can't back it up.

In the early evolution of TCMA - when WCK was formulated...there was no Greco-Roman or Catch-as-Catch-can takedowns being worked against...no Mark Kerr coming in for the grab...no Lou Thesz...no Karl Gotch...no Dan Gable...

Again - this kind of talk is nonsense.

[Vajramusti]

Read again. No secrets. But have to learn biu jee first.
An unopened book can be mistakenly regarded as
claiming secrecy.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Read again. No secrets. But have to learn biu jee first.
An unopened book can be mistakenly regarded as
claiming secrecy."

HAVE LEARNED MOY YAT'S BIL JEE.

HAVE ALSO LEARNED WILLIAM CHEUNG'S TWC BIL JEE.


The book has been open for 30 years now - and has been studied and worked with thoroughly.

And you can't back up anything you're saying.

[old jong]

IMHO-
Having learned the forms is not enough.Having learned from the forms is the important thing and brings more real skill than relying on a "technique vs technique" mindset.
This doesn't mean that knowing how to sprawll and crossface,or knowing ground escapes is not a good thing as emergency moves.
The thing is: The higher the Wing Chun skill=The lesser are the chances you could need those things.

IMO again,skill doesn't come automaticaly from practice time.It comes from quality practice first.It also doesn't come from accumulation of material learned but from the understanding of what is learned.

[AndrewS]

Hey KF,

the signal-to-noise ratio here is getting kinda out of control- we may need a separate thread for this. Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think Wing Chun can be good for on the ground.

Principle-wise there are a lot of things that cross over in terms of body use and frame (which, I'll grant, most WC people don't have standing), but there are some specific bits of technique that stand out, too.

A few things to start-

1). If you can't move the other person, move your self.
2). Push
3). Constant pressure from the hips- which you can use to move the other person, or to try to flow around them
4). Stay relaxed- not floppy, not dead, calm and neutral- until you can feel the moment you need to explode
5). Move behind your bone structure- aka 'lan'- create a frame of a piece of skeleton that redirects force but allows you some motion behind it- the standard forearm across the shoulder and chest to make room in side control in order to shrimp is the same thing/idea as lan (barring arm) and kwan (rolling arm)- fix a point (bar the door) so the other guy can't pass it, then move behind that pressure (kwan)
6). Grab and push- the basic lop where you don't pull, but press with hand control- nice for striking control from any top position.

There are some more specifics and probably some more principles I'll think of later, but here's a start.

Andrew