More Vid Clips

[Edmund]

---Yes. So still playing the devil's advocate and thinking out loud....as "classical" Wing Chun practitioners, are we spending an inordinate amount of time developing an in-fighting skill that is often a very small part of an actual engagement, and neglecting elements that are a very large part of a typical engagement?

Yes you are.

Actually the larger part of a typical engagement is in close.
Once the range is closed it's not that easy to break.

I'd say fighters try to gravitate towards their strength. If they are good from long range, they try to win from long range. If they are good on the ground they try to bring it there. Can you WIN from the inside? Then you really just need enough skill to get to there.

---Thanks for putting it out there in an honest fashion! So now the question becomes this......for those that take a MMA approach but still want to preserve the in-fighting skills and reactions from Wing Chun, what is the best way to do this or preserve this? Is spending lots of time learning all the forms necessary or time efficient? Is doing lots of Chi Sau to develop the in-fighting range the answer? In the interest of efficiency and best use of training time, I would not expect that learning the "classical" Wing Chun method (of whatever lineage) in its entirety would be the answer.

Right! You answered your own question!

However I kinda question how long it actually takes to learn the classical Wing Chun method. Relative to other arts, the forms are incredibly short and not that complicated.

For a MMA approach, I'd say you'd want to be be particularly good at one range but fairly competent at other ranges so you don't have a glaring hole.

---I agree that WCK is principle based and not technique based. But there is still a foundational biomechanic that makes it "Wing Chun." If someone is truly utilizing their Wing Chun when sparring then the way they move and generate power in general should be recognizable as Wing Chun. Otherwise, why spend all that time developing good Wing Chun body structure and a good Wing Chun specific power base? Why wouldn't someone just spend that time developing a better boxing biomechanic and power base instead, if that's what they are going to resort to when sparring?

Boxing? I don't think so personally but it depends on what sparring method you are talking about. Boxing is better for punching. What about kicking and grappling?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So still playing the devil's advocate and thinking out loud....as 'classical' Wing Chun practitioners, are we spending an inordinate amount of time developing an in-fighting skill that is often a very small part of an actual engagement, and neglecting elements that are a very large part of a typical engagement?.....

So now the question becomes this......for those that take a MMA approach but still want to preserve the in-fighting skills and reactions from Wing Chun, what is the best way to do this or preserve this? Is spending lots of time learning all the forms necessary or time efficient? Is doing lots of Chi Sau to develop the in-fighting range the answer? In the interest of efficiency and best use of training time, I would not expect that learning the 'classical' Wing Chun method (of whatever lineage) in its entirety would be the answer" (KPM)


***LET'S PUT IT THIS, Keith...by the time the students I teach these days get to bil jee form and wooden dummy...they have already learned a great deal of longer range footwork, striking, and kicking (WHICH INCLUDES BOXING AND OTHER APPROACHES TO LONG RANGE - AS WELL AS WING CHUN)...and quite a bit of wrestling in the clinch and on the ground....ALONG WITH.... the first form (SLT)...and a substantial amount of chi sao and related fighting applications, all related chi sao drills like pak sao and bong sao/lop sao, po pai, etc....and short range wing chun footwork, striking, and kicking...with chum kiu thrown in along the way.

Mondays: SLT, lots of chi sao and related drills, and wooden dummy for those who are up to it.

Wednesdays: Lots of wrestling, both in the clinch, use of takedowns and (wrestling) takedown defenses...and wrestling on the ground (with some striking thrown in when appropriate). And occasionally I teach a wing chun weapons class on Wednesdays as well.

Saturdays: Forms, BOTH long range striking, kicking, and related footwork (similar to boxing)...AND...more wing chun oriented short range footwork, striking, kicking, etc...chi sao and related drills....sparring drills...and geared up spontaneous contact sparring that includes ALL standup ranges.

[martyg]

Me learn win chun from video me gettin reel good me gonna be master one day i hope any one learn from video. i live in group home me and my frends practse all day we good at win chun.

Why are you talking like an indian out of an old hollywood wild west movie? You makem fire with stick that go boom?

[Edmund]

Why are you talking like an indian out of an old hollywood wild west movie? You makem fire with stick that go boom?

I'd say it's another dismal attempt at humour like MegaFist.

[martyg]

In the interest of efficiency and best use of training time, I would not expect that learning the "classical" Wing Chun method (of whatever lineage) in its entirety would be the answer.

Keith

Heya Keith. I guess my question would be "What's the 'classical wing chun method'?" I've never heard of that breed.

You know from my previous posts, I just don't see the art as something static and classical because of it's propensity to lean towards concepts and principles as the center of the wheel so to speak. That's also why I don't see the need to look outside or to "change" things either. How can you change something that's already in a changeless state? I find it very robust, more of method of training and learning than fighting. One that allows adaptability - I guess almost parallel to the situation of the of the U.S.'s Constitution. The founding fathers of the US couldn't forsee many years in to the future to possibly cover everything in the initial draft. So they built in ways for the constitution to grow, evolve and be further defined. All they knew was what they needed it for right then. Much like the eclectic background that Phil speaks about with regards to Wing Chun. All the people on the red boats could forsee was what they had to fight back then, but knew they couldn't possibly forsee every challenge. Hence by focusing on concepts/principles/methods/etc. they created a venue for growth and adaptability to needs as they presented themselves. If anything, I see the JKD "concept" (unwittingly) being an outside attempt to capture what is actually already the core of wing chun.

As a Wing Chun person I don't have to "absorb what is useful", I have to make myself useful.

[Phil Redmond]

Why are you talking like an indian out of an old hollywood wild west movie? You makem fire with stick that go boom?

this may explain it:
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...ad.php?t=38616
Phil

[Death Touch]

Why are you talking like an indian out of an old hollywood wild west movie? You makem fire with stick that go boom?

be carful me know death touch from video by michael kelly me can make you go num with me baby finger. me take video corse by lam kung fu the worlds bestest master me hands are really fast and can brek bone me not indian. what did indian say when dog fell off the cliff ( dog gone)

[KPM]

Hey Victor!

***LET'S PUT IT THIS, Keith...by the time the students I teach these days get to bil jee form and wooden dummy...they have already learned a great deal of longer range footwork, striking, and kicking (WHICH INCLUDES BOXING AND OTHER APPROACHES TO LONG RANGE - AS WELL AS WING CHUN)...and quite a bit of wrestling in the clinch and on the ground....ALONG WITH.... the first form (SLT)...and a substantial amount of chi sao and related fighting applications, all related chi sao drills like pak sao and bong sao/lop sao, po pai, etc....and short range wing chun footwork, striking, and kicking...with chum kiu thrown in along the way.

---Right, but a related question to what I proposed before.....is this overkill if all you are looking for is contact and flow skills at in-fighting range? In other words....does the "Wing Chun oriented" MMA you have proposed need to be all-inclusive of the Wing Chun system? Or can it "borrow" from the Wing Chun system for applications in the "in-fighting" area?

-------

Hey Marty!

Heya Keith. I guess my question would be "What's the 'classical wing chun method'?" I've never heard of that breed.

--I had a feeling you'd say that! I was just trying to refer to Wing Chun as typically taught....not the JKD version.....not the altered beyond recognition modernized eclectic version....just Wing Chun as we have come to know it and love it. I couldn't say "traditional"....that name is already taken for something more specific!

All the people on the red boats could forsee was what they had to fight back then, but knew they couldn't possibly forsee every challenge. Hence by focusing on concepts/principles/methods/etc. they created a venue for growth and adaptability to needs as they presented themselves. If anything, I see the JKD "concept" (unwittingly) being an outside attempt to capture what is actually already the core of wing chun.

---Good point. But while attempts to adapt Wing Chun to ground-fighting or even "out-fighting" may be possible, I think Victor has pointed out in the past that this may be essentially "reinventing the wheel", when a more efficient approach would be to learn from those that are already good at these things. However, I think one can look at these areas with "Wing Chun eyes" and see how certain things can be done so that they match or draw upon Wing Chun principles. So another questions arises (still playing the devil's advocate here)....do existing grappling methods or boxing/kickboxing methods that are applied thru the "filter" of Wing Chun principles .... become "Wing Chun"?

As a Wing Chun person I don't have to "absorb what is useful", I have to make myself useful.

---Good saying! I like that!

Keith

[kung fu fighter]

Hey KPM!


[/QUOTE]All the people on the red boats could forsee was what they had to fight back then, but knew they couldn't possibly forsee every challenge. Hence by focusing on concepts/principles/methods/etc. they created a venue for growth and adaptability to needs as they presented themselves. If anything, I see the JKD "concept" (unwittingly) being an outside attempt to capture what is actually already the core of wing chun.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with the above!

[Death Touch]

me do chi sow with a manican me have no tran partner me always win me have gost hands me hands real fast. me want wood dumy for train partner do you have one for me to borow or maby you can come over to train me teach you good win chun visit hours are mon and thur 6-9

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Hey Victor!

***LET'S PUT IT THIS, Keith...by the time the students I teach these days get to bil jee form and wooden dummy...they have already learned a great deal of longer range footwork, striking, and kicking (WHICH INCLUDES BOXING AND OTHER APPROACHES TO LONG RANGE - AS WELL AS WING CHUN)...and quite a bit of wrestling in the clinch and on the ground....ALONG WITH.... the first form (SLT)...and a substantial amount of chi sao and related fighting applications, all related chi sao drills like pak sao and bong sao/lop sao, po pai, etc....and short range wing chun footwork, striking, and kicking...with chum kiu thrown in along the way.

---Right, but a related question to what I proposed before.....is this overkill if all you are looking for is contact and flow skills at in-fighting range? In other words....does the 'Wing Chun oriented' MMA you have proposed need to be all-inclusive of the Wing Chun system? Or can it "borrow" from the Wing Chun system for applications in the 'in-fighting' area?" (KPM)

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


***For me, Keith, it's not overkill precisely because I'M NOT JUST LOOKING for contact and flow skills at in-fighting range. And I couldn't "just borrow" from wing chun for applications in the in-fighting area - because I use center (and central) line principles ALL THROUGHOUT my standup striking/kicking game (which includes the longer "boxing/kickboxing" type ranges as well as infighting range)...and I use certain types of Traditional Wing Chun footwork and blindside principles, strategies, and related techniques ALL throughout the standup range as well (not just at close range)...

so that would be an awful lot of "just borrowing" .

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


And as to this:

"But while attempts to adapt Wing Chun to ground-fighting or even 'out-fighting' may be possible, I think Victor has pointed out in the past that this may be essentially 'reinventing the wheel', when a more efficient approach would be to learn from those that are already good at these things. However, I think one can look at these areas with 'Wing Chun eyes' and see how certain things can be done so that they match or draw upon Wing Chun principles. So another questions arises (still playing the devil's advocate here)....do existing grappling methods or boxing/kickboxing methods that are applied thru the 'filter' of Wing Chun principles .... become "Wing Chun"?


***CONTRARY to what some people in the wing chun world believe, I don't think that grappling methods could ever be applied thru a Wing Chun "filter" - and therefore become "Wing Chun".

Again, I THINK THIS IS AN ILLUSION.

Yes, there are some similarities between standup wrestling/grappling "hand fighting" (particularly between what is known as pummeling in wrestling/grappling and chi sao's huen sao techniques that are based upon centerline principles and contact reflex sensitivity in the hands/arms)...

but the similarities are just a very small drop in the bucket. There is just so much more to wrestling that doesn't resemble wing chun at all. Once you really tie up - and especially after you hit the ground - IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF FIGHT ALTOGETHER. Yes, it's true that sometimes you can use striking/kicking/kneeing/elbowing while in the midst of wrestling/grappling...but it's a very secondary role. (The one notable exception to this being the now famous "ground and pound" routine, wherein you are in the top saddle (mount) position and are now raining punches down on the opponent). But even getting this position will almost always require wrestling/grappling takedown and control skills which have nothing to do with wing chun.

As to boxing going through a "wing chun" filter - that's much less of a stretch - since they are still both concerned primarily with striking while on the feet.

[KPM]

Hi Victor!

***For me, Keith, it's not overkill precisely because I'M NOT JUST LOOKING for contact and flow skills at in-fighting range. And I couldn't "just borrow" from wing chun for applications in the in-fighting area - because I use center (and central) line principles ALL THROUGHOUT my standup striking/kicking game (which includes the longer "boxing/kickboxing" type ranges as well as infighting range)...and I use certain types of Traditional Wing Chun footwork and blindside principles, strategies, and related techniques ALL throughout the standup range as well (not just at close range)...so that would be an awful lot of "just borrowing" .

---Then again....maybe not! Do you really need to teach all of the Wing Chun forms and drills to do that?



***CONTRARY to what some people in the wing chun world believe, I don't think that grappling methods could ever be applied thru a Wing Chun "filter" - and therefore become "Wing Chun".
Again, I THINK THIS IS AN ILLUSION.

---I agree with you on that one. Others seem to think differently.


As to boxing going through a "wing chun" filter - that's much less of a stretch - since they are still both concerned primarily with striking while on the feet.

---Yes, and there is one style of boxing that already has many of the "Wing Chun principles" that you mentioned.....the old bare knuckle boxing style. I've posted on this before. You see, when Burton Richardson made that comment about "skipping trapping range" based on experience in different types of sparring/fighting, this wasn't a new revelation at all. This is also how the fight was conducted by the old western pugilists...who, of course, sparred all the time. Before the Marquis of Queensbury Rules came along, things were a bit different in the boxing world. There were no timed rounds....a round only ended when someone hit the dirt. That's why the old matches could go one for dozens of rounds. A given round may have lasted only 20 seconds....long enough to close to the grapple and someone to get thrown. You see, the rules allowed stand up grappling (holding and hitting) as well as throws. One object was to land on top of the opponent to dislocate his shoulder, break some ribs, or just knock all the wind out of him if possible. But there was no extended ground fighting...people came to see a boxing match, not a wrestling match. But some of the old boxing manuals do recommend expanding a fighter's self-defense repertoir by studying wrestling as well. At that time they also did not have nice big gloves to hide behind or cover with. So the style of fight was different compared to modern boxing. They stayed with "out-fighting".....manuevering for openings, probbing with punches from a distance, looking for a good set-up, etc...and used centerline principles to do so that came from fencing theory. When they closed, the "in-fighting" consisted of squaring up more with the opponent in order to throw rapid hard punches from multiple angles....then either someone went down, someone was thrown down, or they jumped back to out-fighting range. In-fighting was very brief unless a standing grapple resulted. There was no flowing, sticking, trapping, redirecting, etc (ala Wing Chun) because things typically went from rapid punching straight to the grapple. Contrast all this to modern boxing where grappling is not allowed and fighters can hide behind nice big gloves. Here it makes sense to stand in close "toe to toe" and "duke it out." Not so with the older method! I can see how the old western pugilism method could be improved upon precisely by adding to its in-fighting game with Wing Chun techniques and principles. But does one have to learn the entire Wing Chun system in order to do this?

Keith

[Death Touch]

The "Pole" is the Wing Chun staff or Kwan in Chinese.
Phil

me like you you cool you from detrot that is scary place me frend say do you use win chun on gangs there me like to know me have to take nap now by

[Ultimatewingchun]

"There is one style of boxing that already has many of the "Wing Chun principles" that you mentioned.....the old bare knuckle boxing style. I've posted on this before. You see, when Burton Richardson made that comment about "skipping trapping range" based on experience in different types of sparring/fighting, this wasn't a new revelation at all. This is also how the fight was conducted by the old western pugilists...who, of course, sparred all the time. Before the Marquis of Queensbury Rules came along, things were a bit different in the boxing world. There were no timed rounds....a round only ended when someone hit the dirt. That's why the old matches could go one for dozens of rounds. A given round may have lasted only 20 seconds....long enough to close to the grapple and someone to get thrown. You see, the rules allowed stand up grappling (holding and hitting) as well as throws. One object was to land on top of the opponent to dislocate his shoulder, break some ribs, or just knock all the wind out of him if possible. But there was no extended ground fighting...people came to see a boxing match, not a wrestling match. But some of the old boxing manuals do recommend expanding a fighter's self-defense repertoir by studying wrestling as well. At that time they also did not have nice big gloves to hide behind or cover with. So the style of fight was different compared to modern boxing. They stayed with "out-fighting".....manuevering for openings, probbing with punches from a distance, looking for a good set-up, etc...and used centerline principles to do so that came from fencing theory. When they closed, the "in-fighting" consisted of squaring up more with the opponent in order to throw rapid hard punches from multiple angles....then either someone went down, someone was thrown down, or they jumped back to out-fighting range. In-fighting was very brief unless a standing grapple resulted. There was no flowing, sticking, trapping, redirecting, etc (ala Wing Chun) because things typically went from rapid punching straight to the grapple. Contrast all this to modern boxing where grappling is not allowed and fighters can hide behind nice big gloves. Here it makes sense to stand in close "toe to toe" and "duke it out." Not so with the older method! I can see how the old western pugilism method could be improved upon precisely by adding to its in-fighting game with Wing Chun techniques and principles. But does one have to learn the entire Wing Chun system in order to do this?" (KPM)


***GREAT POST, Keith. I've got to spend some time looking into bare-knuckled boxing of old.

No....you don't need to learn the entire wing chun system to use it's most vital principles and techs and still be a great fighter. Ever heard of a guy named Bruce Lee?

[Phil Redmond]

>>Originally Posted by KPM. Thanks for putting it out there in an honest fashion! So now the question becomes this......for those that take a MMA approach but still want to preserve the in-fighting skills and reactions from Wing Chun, what is the best way to do this or preserve this? Is spending lots of time learning all the forms necessary or time efficient? Is doing lots of Chi Sau to develop the in-fighting range the answer? In the interest of efficiency and best use of training time, I would not expect that learning the "classical" Wing Chun method (of whatever lineage) in its entirety would be the answer.<<

Hi Keith, didn't Leung Jan go back to his native village of Gu Lo to teach WC without forms? From my limited understanding he taught fighting drills/sets? based on his fighting experiences. Someone who knows please correct me if I'm wrong.
Phil