Does WC answer the question......

[anerlich]

What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?

If you look hard enough for WC principles in the tactics used by skilled groundfighters, you can probably find them, but not everywhere.

You could, with about the same ease and validity, look at a skilled standup fight and point to where one or other of the practitioners used sound BJJ principles (if all you do is WC, how would you know?)

The fact remains that, no matter how strong one's theoretical base may be, that if he doesn't spend significant time sparring with and learning from good groundfighters and learning how THEY apply sound groundfighting principles, you are not going to have the experience base to apply those principles, and counter the more experienced fighter's applications of them, and are going to get comprehensively beaten when the fight hits the floor.

You want to beat BJJer's? Sambists, MMAers? You need to learn what they know, as well as what your WC ancestors know. One way or another, you need to learn BJJ to hold your own against BJJ - same applies to any other discipline.

The WC strategies aren't necessarily flawed ... it is just there are some areas of fighting for which they have no application at all. Pin escapes are the most obvious example.

Props to the HFY successes, but ...

Fighters from my organisation have won fights at entry and intermediate levels in boxing, kickboxing, MMA, and BJJ events over several years. We won or placed in every division we entered in the Tasmanian BJJ championships in 2004. This is just part of testing your art and moving to another level ... there didn't seem to be the need to post blow by blow details of our successes or imply that we were somehow bringing WC out of the MMA wilderness all on our own.

At the BJJ and MMA club I go to, people have ring fights regularly, and win a fair number. These people get a round of applause at training, and a mention in the club newsletter, but if every MMA club did this for every event MA forums would be filled to overflowing with these results and nothing else.

When one of ours, or yours, win an elite level event, THEN we'll shout it out.

We crosstrain, and IMO so should you.

[lawrenceofidaho]

knifefighter, what principles are you referring to exactly and how do they change?

Answering for myself (abruptly):

mobility on the ground is entirely different from WC footwork,

power generation is different when one is vertical instead of horizontal,

positioning of bodies in relation to each other varies greatly on the ground (while not so much on the feet),

the individual in dominant position (usually the superior grappler) has a big advantage in striking power and overall offensive capability.

I'm sure there are many more, but these are what occured to me immediately off the top of my head.......

[Edmund]

Yeah but the comps aren't UFC or Pride so they don't count.

Lonnie Dodge did win an amateur MMA bout in KC, MO. See my above post.

Thanks tbone.

I think it counts but not quite as much! Pride and UFC are at another level of athleticism higher.

Not taking away from Dodge's win. He won in 45 seconds which would make anyone pretty happy with the result.

Kansas City is in both Missouri and Kansas... weird huh? Kind of like St. Louis being in both Missouri and Illinois.

Why can't Missouri build it's own cities? It's so cheap it's got to steal cities off neighbouring states! Guess it gets extra state taxes off them.

[tbone]

Why can't Missouri build it's own cities? It's so cheap it's got to steal cities off neighbouring states! Guess it gets extra state taxes off them.

haha

I don't know, I've lived in both cities and never thought to ask.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Yeah but the comps aren't UFC or Pride so they don't count.

tbone, just because you don't know about an MMA event going on in Jerkwater, Idaho doesn't mean I would assume you are some sort of elitist MMA snob.

Cut me some slack already.

I have never tried to diminish amateur and/or local MMA shows....... I am a sparring partner to many of the local fighters here, and have even officiated at a local show in the past year.

-I just didn't know about the KC event because I haven't been on the forum for a while.

-L

[Knifefighter]

knifefighter, what principles are you referring to exactly and how do they change?

There are specific principes for specific positions. Since WC doesn't even have these positional differentiations in the first place(guard, 1/2 guard, side control, mount, north/south, mount, back mount), it doesn't have principles for them.

Some basic groundfighting principles are:

- Make space when on the bottom.
- Shut down space when establishing control on the top.
- Open space for striking when control is established.
- Block the hip when holding side cotrol.
- Control opponent's lower and upper body when passing the guard.
- Don't extend your arms when mounted.
- Don't try to be offensive when mounted.
- Use short or long control when someone is in your guard.
- Stay parrallel to your opponent when in the guard.
- Created angles when using the guard.
- Fight for underhooks.
- Transition to better positions.
- Position before submission (specific BJJ principle).
- Isolation.
- Two limbs vs. one limb.
- Biceps/triceps control from north/south bottom.
- Handfight for grip control.
- Set up submissions with strikes.
- Turtle as transistion rather than position.
- When attacked from the back, protect the neck before defending the hooks.
- When back mounted, back to the ground.
- Control the opponent's head when in top 1/2 guard.

[lawrenceofidaho]

There are specific principes for specific positions. Since WC doesn't even have these positional differentiations in the first place(guard, 1/2 guard, side control, mount, north/south, mount, back mount), it doesn't have principles for them.

Some basic groundfighting principles are:

- Make space when on the bottom.
- Shut down space when establishing control on the top.
- Open space for striking when control is established.
- Block the hip when holding side cotrol.
- Control opponent's lower and upper body when passing the guard.
- Don't extend your arms when mounted.
- Don't try to be offensive when mounted.
- Use short or long control when someone is in your guard.
- Stay parrallel to your opponent when in the guard.
- Created angles when using the guard.
- Fight for underhooks.
- Transition to better positions.
- Position before submission (specific BJJ principle).
- Isolation.
- Two limbs vs. one limb.
- Biceps/triceps control from north/south bottom.
- Handfight for grip control.
- Set up submissions with strikes.
- Turtle as transistion rather than position.
- When attacked from the back, protect the neck before defending the hooks.
- When back mounted, back to the ground.
- Control the opponent's head when in top 1/2 guard.

Cool List!!
Thanks, Dale. -I wish I had this a couple of years ago.

Two things on the list I was previously unaware of:
- Biceps/triceps control from north/south bottom.
- Control the opponent's head when in top 1/2 guard.

Intersting concepts to explore when I roll later this week.......

[canglong]

Hey Terence,
Been awhile. I always enjoy your posts.

I snipped out parts of your post just to save space. I'm curious as to what part of the wck theory you think is BS.

I really haven't been to many schools so I don't know how they teach, but the theories that I've been taught seem to be fine.

I agree with what you said about experience and how it weighs more than theory. I think that's the case as well. I think where I differ is that your experience then becomes your theory.

For most people to really understand wing chun, they have to be able to pass it on, they may never have their own school, but they should be able to pass it on. At least that's how I see it. If you can't explain it, then I think you don't understand it.
The reason why I'm saying this is that theory does matter, so you can pass it on.

Hello Jeff Bussey,
Your post was very well done kudos to not only making a valid point but also the way in which you made it.

[canglong]

The fact remains that, no matter how strong one's theoretical base may be, that if he doesn't spend significant time sparring with and learning from good groundfighters and learning how THEY apply sound groundfighting principles, you are not going to have the experience base to apply those principles, and counter the more experienced fighter's applications of them, and are going to get comprehensively beaten when the fight hits the floor.

Andrew,
Significant sparring time is a good thing no doubt about that. The difference of opinion seems to me to be how to best use that sparring time. One can either train with as you say BJJer's, Sambists, MMAers and others and the list could go on and on or you can find the common denominator amongst those group of arts/styles and train it. The it in my opinion in this particular case can be defined as the principles of grappling. Does there exist a set of natural laws of physics that every grappler must adhere to no matter what the art/style is referred to by name and if so then by training/sparring utilizing those principles can one then become proficient in the arts of grappling and anti grappling. Personally from what I train I find the answer to be yes but of course others will quite naturally disagree as opinions can and do vary. Each individual experience is valid and has merit but sometimes in threads such as this that point is often overlooked.

Some seem to think you can either be a practitioner or a theorist but not both. To that it seems Jeff Bussey said it very well...

I think where I differ is that your experience then becomes your theory.

[sihing]

Like Jeff said, your experience becomes your theory. On forums like this, your fact is my theory, and theory is all we can talk about here in the written form. Each of us has to take what we are learning and training in and apply it for ourselves. All we can do here is write about it, and what we have experienced in the process of it all. All of us will have different experiences. All of us will have different needs and motivations driving us to train in WC/VT. So therefore, it's almost impossible to answer the question "Does WC answer the question?" generically.

IMO, VT teaches us very well how to use our bodies in a very effective and efficient manner. It is not the easiest method to learn, and is overkill in allot of ways, but I still love training in it. The love of what activities you participate is the strongest motivation for what you train in, I believe. When fighting, you can have the greatest ability to express your VT in forms, chi sau and dummy work, and have the most thorough understanding of it, but if you cannot express it and use it against a resisting, equally skilled opponent that is trying to hurt you, you don't have much in the way of practical usage. In the end, IMO you need three more elements that will make you a more complete fighter, 1) Good timing (doing the right things at the right time) 2) Good distance control (playing according to your rules not theirs) & 3) great eyes or ability to perceive your opponents movements. Put a blindfold on George St Pierre and he wouldn't be that good. Without good eyes to see & assess your opponent's movement quickly, you will be unable to use your VT skills effectively. VT just sharpens your tools, gives your body away of reacting, instead of trying to figure it out when the sh!t hits the fan.

But whatta I know eh...


James

[tbone]

tbone, just because you don't know about an MMA event going on in Jerkwater, Idaho doesn't mean I would assume you are some sort of elitist MMA snob.

Cut me some slack already.

I have never tried to diminish amateur and/or local MMA shows....... I am a sparring partner to many of the local fighters here, and have even officiated at a local show in the past year.

-I just didn't know about the KC event because I haven't been on the forum for a while.

-L

Very good, sorry Lawrence.

I didn't mean that comment to be specific to anyone in particular. I wrote it directed towards the attitude that some seem to have that the only way to test yourself and your system of fighting is to enter and win in UFC or Pride. If that doesn't describe you then I didn't intend to direct it toward you.

[canglong]

There are specific principes for specific positions. Since WC doesn't even have these positional differentiations in the first place(guard, 1/2 guard, side control, mount, north/south, mount, back mount), it doesn't have principles for them.

Some basic groundfighting principles are:

- Make space when on the bottom.
- Shut down space when establishing control on the top.
- Open space for striking when control is established.
- Block the hip when holding side cotrol.
- Control opponent's lower and upper body when passing the guard.
- Don't extend your arms when mounted.
- Don't try to be offensive when mounted.
- Use short or long control when someone is in your guard.
- Stay parrallel to your opponent when in the guard.
- Created angles when using the guard.
- Fight for underhooks.
- Transition to better positions.
- Position before submission (specific BJJ principle).
- Isolation.
- Two limbs vs. one limb.
- Biceps/triceps control from north/south bottom.
- Handfight for grip control.
- Set up submissions with strikes.
- Turtle as transistion rather than position.
- When attacked from the back, protect the neck before defending the hooks.
- When back mounted, back to the ground.
- Control the opponent's head when in top 1/2 guard.

knifefighter,
Though the list you have provided is detailed and quite thorough it does not appear to be a list of principles of which I was referring to earlier in the discussion but instead a list of concepts. Let's examine the terms more closely.


Lets start with the 3 layers we recognize that fights take place upon.
Technique, Concept and Principle.

Main Entry: tech·nique
Pronunciation: tek-'nEk
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from technique technical, from Greek technikos
1 : the manner in which technical details are treated (as by a writer) or basic physical movements are used (as by a dancer); also : ability to treat such details or use such movements <good piano technique>
2 a : a body of technical methods (as in a craft or in scientific research) b : a method of accomplishing a desired aim

Pretty sure we are all familiar with different techniques and are able to identify and convey them verbally. What we need to understand is that techniques are always driven by a concept. Example of technique arm bar, front kick biu sau

Main Entry: 1con·cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive -- more at CONCEIVE
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Beyond this we must further understand that the concepts are always driven by a corresponding principle. Example of concepts Center line theory, six gates & lok ma

Main Entry: prin·ci·ple
Pronunciation: 'prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, -s&-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator -- more at PRINCE
1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle> c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.
Example of principles For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Two objects may not occupy the same place at the same time. These principle (natural) laws of nature (physics) do not change.

Putting it all together for example
Laap sau is the technique.
Center line theory is the concept
An unbalanced center of gravity equals and unbalanced object, the principle.

So the point here is when we want to practice laap sau and grab someone and pull at them but don't effect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them we are not actually performing laap sau because 2 of the requirements are not being met.

This is just a small exapmple of how we learn to better understand not only what lives behind the techniques of the art but why any given technique is effective in the first place. With this same knowledge we then learn what is the antithesis of each technique much more thoroughly by understanding and knowing what 3 layers exist for each technique and the how and why of each technique which is best described in the concepts and principles of any particular technique because there are far fewer principles and concepts to be learned and understood than there are techniques.

[Knifefighter]

knifefighter,
Though the list you have provided is detailed and quite thorough it does not appear to be a list of principles of which I was referring to earlier in the discussion but instead a list of concepts..

OK, principles...

- The force from hitting the ground is damaging.
- The ground allows for control of the opponent and limits his options better than standing does.
- The ground allows for more offensive options than does standing.
- The entire body used as leverage against an opponent's limb (or neck) provides maximum torque.
- Techniques and concepts are different for different positions.

[Knifefighter]

So the point here is when we want to practice laap sau and grab someone and pull at them but don't effect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them we are not actually performing laap sau because 2 of the requirements are not being met.

If you grab someone and pull at them, but don't affect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them, but use it as a set up for another damaging blow, what technique have you just done?

[Knifefighter]

Principles are definitely more important than individual techniques.

I'm going to rescind that comment because it is stupid.

Techniques are the single most important part of a system, followed by concepts, and then by principles. Concepts underlie the techniques and principles underlie the concepts. For one to completely understand a system, one must understand all three. However, one doesn't fight with principles or concepts.

One can fight with techniques without ever understanding the principles and concepts behind them. Additionally, techniques that violate a system's principles can sometimes be put to effective use.