Clip from Alan Orr DVD's series

[azwingchun]

also, about the stylized signatures well one thing is every person moves differently anyway, their body languague if you will. the second thing is the stylized signature often is there but you have to look carefully to see it. its usually pretty easy to tell someones background (boxing/thai/kickboxing/karate etc) even thought the techniques may be similar and it all looks like fighting. its just in action everythings a bit 'blurred' or not as stylized. eg i can see alans teams clips and see the wing chun roots are there in how they move even though it doesnt obviously look wing chun (like the forms/drills etc). actually, i also saw a few little things that made me think hmm not so wing chun but were not talking details so thats another story

The above about the stylized character and having to look carefully....I agree 100%. I think some times too much focus is spent on what someone's shape/form appears to be and not the concepts or principals which are being applied.

[osprey3883]

Hello all,
Sorry to chime in here so late in the discussion, but here goes-
I have to agree with those posting that certain arts have a certain signature or flavor based on the expression of the art. Ultimately it all boils down to "you fight how you train", it has been shown many times over.

re- Terence

I nice back-hand compliment (essentially "good fight, poor WCK"). Here's the problem: you have an idea of how you think WCK should work or should look in fighting/application. That's your theory. And that's all it is since you've never seen anyone who could do it against anyone with decent fighting skills. But it persists nonetheless. You see Alan fight and contrast what he did with your theory, and since he didn't meet your "standard" by your theory, he had poor WCK.

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. If you show multiple lineages of WC practitioners the same clip, and the majority can't/don't see the WC, then you are most likely not expressing WC. You may be expressing something that is a part of your training, but it is likely your instructors take on how to deal with a particular situation, not an expression of WC.

I will say I do appreciate Alan's willingness to go mix it up. The NHB rule on not striking to the face would make me nuts though.

Just my 2 cents,
Matt

[t_niehoff]

Hello all,
Sorry to chime in here so late in the discussion, but here goes-
I have to agree with those posting that certain arts have a certain signature or flavor based on the expression of the art. Ultimately it all boils down to "you fight how you train", it has been shown many times over.

re- Terence

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. If you show multiple lineages of WC practitioners the same clip, and the majority can't/don't see the WC, then you are most likely not expressing WC. You may be expressing something that is a part of your training, but it is likely your instructors take on how to deal with a particular situation, not an expression of WC.

I don't disagree. But only those people who are acquainted with "genuine expression of the art" and at a fairly significant level would know; nonfighting theoreticians are lost in their theory.

It's this simple: A person's understanding of WCK is directly related (tied to) his skill level (how well he can fight using his WCK). I don't care if someone calls themself "master" or "grandmaster" or have been "practicing" WCK for 30 years, their understanding is on the same level as their fighting skill. So having lots of people in WCK who can't do it say how it "should" be done or how it a"should" look is meaningless. This is the blind leading the blind.

From what I've heard, no one who really practices WCK -- fights with it and against decent oppostion -- has registered any disagreement with Alan's expression.

[Jim Roselando]

T wrote:

From what I've heard, no one who really practices WCK -- fights with it and against decent oppostion -- has registered any disagreement with Alan's expression.

Nobody is complaining about Alan's performance. As a matter of fact, most are complimenting him. The discussion is how much is WCK%. So, nobody needs Terence to answer that question since Alan has replied and answered already:

It is hard to see that on a clip, for such. But it is not western boxing its CHINESE BOXING, Elbow position, first angle, stance, methods of power are all different.

[osprey3883]

I don't disagree. But only those people who are acquainted with "genuine expression of the art" and at a fairly significant level would know; nonfighting theoreticians are lost in their theory.

Terrence,
Are you saying that the wing chun community in general doesn't have people qualified to see what is and isn't wing chun?

I would have to agree with Jim, looking at the demo clip as well as the fighting clips, IMO I see more general chinese kung fu knowledge, but not anything that strikes the viewer as "yep, that's WC."

Matt

[Nick Forrer]

Funny we were training our wc with a well known MMA fighter tonight working some drills with the boxing gloves.

Although no slouch with his stand up, if all we were doing was boxing or muay thai then he should have had no trouble doing what we were doing since it would be interchangeable with what he already knows. Instead his stance, elbow position and torso rotation were all different and he had to be coached how to do our method.

Still I guess what we are doing is still not WC

In our system we have spring punches, whipping punches, cutting punches, bouncing punches, thrusting punches and piercing punches (amongst others)...If all your system has is straight punches plus some hand techniques with no body structure to power them then yes you will look at clips and say that is not wc. But what you really mean is 'that is not wc according to my level of understanding of it'.

[Liddel]

I think some times too much focus is spent on what someone's shape/form appears to be and not the concepts or principals which are being applied.

Yes.
From what Alan has posted, it seems form his POV Body structure is the most important element in VT. So for people to look for shapes and form is flawed.

IMO Dynamic body structure is the most important part in VT, from the legs up.
Second is the behaviour of the elbows, for structure and power.
Thirdly is the timing of VT.

These attributes (IMO only ) are the main differences between VT and other styles and traits that i look for when looking at VT in action.

Alans guys may certainly look like any other style an observer can imagine, but what about how they generate power, something you have to feel.

I can make my VT look like other styles but i am a VT man, i can apply Boxing methods like a 'swirl' or a 'falling step' to my punch, with elbow in and first vertical.

So what style is my punch then ? Its mine !
DREW

[GlennR]

IMO Dynamic body structure is the most important part in VT, from the legs up.
Second is the behaviour of the elbows, for structure and power.
Thirdly is the timing of VT.

Alans guys may certainly look like any other style an observer can imagine, but what about how they generate power, something you have to feel.

I can make my VT look like other styles but i am a VT man, i can apply Boxing methods like a 'swirl' or a 'falling step' to my punch, with elbow in and first vertical.

Hi All

I think Liddel is spot on with the above comments.
Its all about what the other guy is feeling at the other end that more or less defines what "style" is being applied upon him.

What i see on both the clips is good structure, presenting the body in what i would call a "WC way".
Stop looking at the hands for a second and compare the stance of the opposing fighters..... totally different from the WC guys who look surprisingly similar.
That would be my signature for the two WC fighters

Regarding hands and elbows? I still see elbows down and plenty of straight punches..... all seems WC to me.

My guess is that the non-Wc boys would have felt;
- strong forward force
- hard to crack defense, particularly down the centre
- power in the punching

My two cents worth!

Glenn

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,
Are you saying that the wing chun community in general doesn't have people qualified to see what is and isn't wing chun?

I would have to agree with Jim, looking at the demo clip as well as the fighting clips, IMO I see more general chinese kung fu knowledge, but not anything that strikes the viewer as "yep, that's WC."

Matt

As the "wing chun community in general" (including its "masters" and "grandmasters") couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack (use their WCK), I wouldn't give their opinion much weight.

When I first saw the 1st UFC and saw Royce fight, it looked like crap -- but the commentator, someone who knew BJJ kept talking about how well Royce was doing (even though it looked to me like he was getting killed). I thought he was crazy! Then Royce's opponent's tapped, and I didn't even know why. Because I did not have an "educated eye" to ground fighting at that point.

It takes a certain "education" to see what Alan is doing.

Let's leave it at this: there is the "art" part of WCK and the "martial" part of WCK. Everyone has the "art." Few develop the "martial." People stuck on the "art" believe the "martial" will look like the "art", and have all kinds of theories about the "martial" based on the "art." If and when they begin to develop the "martial", their perspective will change. Only people doing the "martial" can appreciate the "martial."

[azwingchun]

Yes.
From what Alan has posted, it seems form his POV Body structure is the most important element in VT. So for people to look for shapes and form is flawed.

IMO Dynamic body structure is the most important part in VT, from the legs up.
Second is the behaviour of the elbows, for structure and power.
Thirdly is the timing of VT.

These attributes (IMO only ) are the main differences between VT and other styles and traits that i look for when looking at VT in action.

Alans guys may certainly look like any other style an observer can imagine, but what about how they generate power, something you have to feel.

I can make my VT look like other styles but i am a VT man, i can apply Boxing methods like a 'swirl' or a 'falling step' to my punch, with elbow in and first vertical.

So what style is my punch then ? Its mine !
DREW

I agree with you.....I still say great Wing Chun is felt and not seen.

As fas as elbows, for the most part I would agree, though lets not forget that Wing Chun doesn't always have the elbow down.....look at bong sau, fak sau, the elbow strikes, and the hooking punch. The elbow down is only but one principal of Wing Chun for defense and power generation......there are other principals as well.

[ChangHFY]

It's this simple: A person's understanding of WCK is directly related (tied to) his skill level (how well he can fight using his WCK). I don't care if someone calls themself "master" or "grandmaster" or have been "practicing" WCK for 30 years, their understanding is on the same level as their fighting skill. So having lots of people in WCK who can't do it say how it "should" be done or how it a"should" look is meaningless. This is the blind leading the blind.

Hey Terrence,

I would have to disagree with this post,

a persons knowledge of Wing Chun is not directly tied to his/her skill.
For instance I could be a practitioner of 10 different expressions of Wing Chun. In the Wing Chun community I would be considered an knowledgeable practitioner.
But if Ive never had skill challenges than my knowledge in no way reflects my skill.

In Wing Chun if you havent used the concepts that are being trained in a live skill challenge such as full contact fighting or something similar, than the knowledge that is being learned has no meaning on where your skill level lies.

take care,
Zach

[t_niehoff]

It's this simple: A person's understanding of WCK is directly related (tied to) his skill level (how well he can fight using his WCK). I don't care if someone calls themself "master" or "grandmaster" or have been "practicing" WCK for 30 years, their understanding is on the same level as their fighting skill. So having lots of people in WCK who can't do it say how it "should" be done or how it a"should" look is meaningless. This is the blind leading the blind.

Hey Terrence,

I would have to disagree with this post,

a persons knowledge of Wing Chun is not directly tied to his/her skill.
For instance I could be a practitioner of 10 different expressions of Wing Chun. In the Wing Chun community I would be considered an knowledgeable practitioner.
But if Ive never had skill challenges than my knowledge in no way reflects my skill.

In Wing Chun if you havent used the concepts that are being trained in a live skill challenge such as full contact fighting or something similar, than the knowledge that is being learned has no meaning on where your skill level lies.

take care,
Zach

Zach, I understand what you mean. This is the old I-know-it-but-I-just-can't-do-it (yet) view. A variation of that is I-can't-do-it-but-I-can-teach-it ("I'm a teacher not a fighter"). This view arises from IMO incorrectly looking at WCK as being knowledge-based, like an academic subject. It's not. Try looking at WCK for what it really is: a physical activity. Do you really know how to juggle or ride a bike if you can't do those things? They are physical activities, physical skills. In physical activites/skills, you don't really know it unless you can do it. And the better you can do it, the more you know about it. WCK is like wrestling or BJJ or any fighting method: our knowledge for the most part comes from our skill, not the other way round. If you can't do it (if you can't juggle or can't grapple well), then you don't know how to do it, and if you don't know how to do it, the only knowledge you have is superficial.

The forms, drills, theory, etc. are all superficial in that they show elements of WCK but don't show WCK, the activity. And skill in WCK is skill in doing the activity (fighting). Our ability/skill informs our understanding of the forms, drills, theory, etc. Someone with low skill won't understand (or know) the same things as someone with greater skill. For example, a black belt in BJJ knows more and understands more about passing the guard than a blue belt -- and that knowledge and understanding comes from his skill (or more exactly, from the process he went through to develop that skill). Someone might have the superficial knowledge of how to pass the guard but little genuine skill (they can't do it well in fighting). If that's the case, I'd say that they really don't know that much, don't understand that much, and that their knowledge is reflected by their skill. Is that someone you want to teach you how to pass the guard?

[JPinAZ]

The forms, drills, theory, etc. are all superficial in that they show elements of WCK but don't show WCK, the activity. And skill in WCK is skill in doing the activity (fighting). Our ability/skill informs our understanding of the forms, drills, theory, etc. Someone with low skill won't understand (or know) the same things as someone with greater skill. For example, a black belt in BJJ knows more and understands more about passing the guard than a blue belt -- and that knowledge and understanding comes from his skill (or more exactly, from the process he went through to develop that skill). Someone might have the superficial knowledge of how to pass the guard but little genuine skill (they can't do it well in fighting). If that's the case, I'd say that they really don't know that much, don't understand that much, and that their knowledge is reflected by their skill. Is that someone you want to teach you how to pass the guard?

From that line of thinking, I'm sure there are least a FEW 1st degree black sash/belts in WC just here on this forum. So, then there's gotta be plenty of good 'WC community" right here huh.....

In my opinion, while the videos do show some pretty good skill, I didn't 'see' much of what I'd say 'looked like WC'. If the theroies were there (concepts/principles), that's different - much harder to 'see' that. haha, if there's even such a thing right?

JP

[golden arhat]

hi i posted some ofm your stuff on another thread

u got any clips of you using this stuff in a competition ?
just out of interest ?

[forever young]

From that line of thinking, I'm sure there are least a FEW 1st degree black sash/belts in WC just here on this forum. So, then there's gotta be plenty of good 'WC community" right here huh.....

i would just like to chime in to ask when the hell did sashes/belts become part of the system and are they directly pertainable to fighting skill or knowledge of forms????
oh and where the hell is my sash/belt and can i have a red, gold and green sash
but in all honestly i thought skill and ability determined whom is given status not belts/sashes and is this use of sashes becoming prevailent within wc/vt (i know LT awards rank)