"Functionalizing" WCK

[monji112000]

Interetsing post there. Thanks for the insight.

I was also trying to highlight that I, as a Sifu/Coach, wouldn't want to compete when I could be promoting my students instead.

Unfortunately, good students are hard to find, as are good Sifus.

To be a teacher is no small endeavor, its not something to take lightly. How much more so in becoming a student. You may go a whole lifetime and never find a teacher thats "right". I can assume its the same for the other perspective. Anyone can teach you something, but thats not what I'm talking about. The word Sifu for me personally has more meaning than just teacher.

[LoneTiger108]

When I think back, I remember being 'labelled' a Sifu and thinking 'I'm just a Sihing here!' To me, a Sifu puts his life into his art and his students. Much like my own does but I use the term loosely these days. I see myself more as a coach, and one of a pair as I teach with my Sihing mostly.

This forum, believe it or not, is my introduction to my 'self'. The first attempt I have made to contact anyone from the family on my own! Strange, as I turned 33 last week and fill my days working in an office.

How can I be 'functional' in ways that match everyone elses experiences in fighting and competition?

I can only study more these days, as even training is minimal

[KPM]

Hey Guys!

Some good responses so far. I agree with several of the points made and offer some of my own:

1. Realistic sparring with opponents doing something other than WCK is key to finding out what works.
2. A "functionalized" WCK may begin to resemble JKD more and more.
3. Training should be done with more "realistic" modern weapons such as sticks and tactical folders...again making it appear more like JKD.
4. Conditioning is very important and should be an integral part of the training.
5. Training should include modern equipment such as focus mitts and heavy bags to help develop realistic striking power.
6. Including training in the clinch range and on the ground is essential to being a more "well-rounded" fighter. This should be blended smoothly with the stand up WCK skills.

There are some points that have not come up yet on this thread. Do we keep the traditional WCK forms? Do we modify the forms to reflect what we discover to be more functional and realistic? Do we keep the wooden dummy?

Here's a thought that I had.....develop a "san sik" system of "separate points" as in Ku Lo Wing Chun. Break out of the traditional forms those movements that are key to the WCK body structure as well as those movements proven to be functional in a realistic sparring situation. Develop them as short "san sik"sequences that are practiced solo, with a partner in a two-man "set" format, applied on the dummy, and in sparring. This would be similar to a boxer that works specific combos solo, against the focus mitts, on the heavy bag, and in sparring. This "san sik system" could be either a supplement to "traditional" WCK, or its own independant version of WCK. It would allow one to focus on and develop those WCK movements that are the most functional and useful. But now the question becomes....which parts of the forms would you break out as a san sik? What movements of your own would you put into a san sik? Here's an example:

Bong-Lop Da...solo...two-man version = classic Lop Da drill...practiced on the dummy...worked into sparring against a resisting opponent.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I agree, Keith. A "functionalized" wing chun will look something like JKD. Not exactly like it - but the basic approach of a functionalized wing chun has to have certain things going for it that do resemble the path Bruce Lee took in a number of ways. Such as:

1) A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more "typical" wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

And using a slightly more up-on-your-toes footwork doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice rootedness and stability for mobility - for once you've "delivered" (or even "as" you're delivering) enough weaponry (punches/kicks) to get to the close infight range your rooted and stable wing chun instincts and training can and should take over.

2- Longer range punching tactics will also come into play (ie.- straight leads, rear crosses. etc.) using some shoulder and hip rotation for a longer reach and power can easily marry into a wing chun strategy using centerlines/centralines.

Now granted - we can argue that wing chun already has horizontal straight punches, uppercuts, and hooking punches - but the line between this and a more "boxing-like" approach to these punches can get very thin. Very thin indeed. (Witness the latest thread about boxing and WSL/Rolf Clausnitzer as just one of many examples - and the vid on another thread showing Alan Orr's guy Aaron Baum fighting in a mma event is another).

3) Clinch work when in the very close quarter range that may go waay beyond any kind of wing chun "trapping"/hitting and into Greco, or throwing and other takedown techniques - and of course...

4) Wrestling/grappling on the ground.

[Wu Wei Wu]

Functional Wing Chun is just Wing Chun. It is not JKD.

If one gets to the point where he questions the validity of the forms and the dummy, the path is clear, do something else. Because this will be the moment at which you cease being a Wing Chun man.

Perhaps the way forward is simply this. Train like a boxer or MMA guy, because they tend to have the upper hand in conditioning over traditional martial artists. However, always retain the tactics, skills and strategy from Wing Chun. Be a functional athlete first, then adopt the mind-set for self-protection and then use the tools provided by Wing Chun for when you switch into combat mode.

I may be missing the point here, but I like to keep my Wing Chun uncluttered and simple.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Guys!

Some good responses so far. I agree with several of the points made and offer some of my own:

1. Realistic sparring with opponents doing something other than WCK is key to finding out what works.

Realistic sparring (and realistic drills which are snippets of sparring) are the only way to develop realsitic skills. Everything else is just prep work. That stuff may be necessary, but it is still only prep. The "real work" for developing fighting skill is the realistic sparring.

For sparring to be "realistic", however, it needs to have the participants actually working at or near 100% intensity (power, speed, etc.), genuinely resisting each other, and otherwise "behaving" like a fight. You should be able to map what you are doing in sparring onto a fight, 1-to-1. It's that 1-to-1 correspondence that is key.

Moreover, while doing that with nonWCK people is important (because you don't want to just deal with "programmed" people), the quality (skill-level, attribute level) of your opponents is most critical. Because you will only get as good as your training/sparring partners. You're not going to become a BB in BJJ rolling only with white belts.

2. A "functionalized" WCK may begin to resemble JKD more and more.

No, it doesn't. The "easy" way to tell if you are using WCK is to see if you are actually using WCK -- are you regularly and consistently using the tools of WCK in your sparring. WCK has a relatively small "tool belt", and if you are not using most of the tools in your sparring, then I'd suggest there is something "wrong" with what you are doing (your approach).

The tools of WCK, just liek the tools of any MA, have specific functions, they answer or deal with certain, specific combative problems. If you are not using them, it is because by what you are doing you are not facing those combative problems. So, for instance, if you "kickbox" with WCK, you'll find little use of the WCK tools since the problems inherent in kickboxing are not the problems the WCK tools address. This is why you don't see them come out.

3. Training should be done with more "realistic" modern weapons such as sticks and tactical folders...again making it appear more like JKD.

None of that has anything to do with WCK.

4. Conditioning is very important and should be an integral part of the training.

Conditioning is your bodies level of readiness to do your activity, in this case fight. What athlete doesn't know that conditioning is vital?

5. Training should include modern equipment such as focus mitts and heavy bags to help develop realistic striking power.

Yes and no. Specific equipment is useful for developing specific skills, attributes, etc.

6. Including training in the clinch range and on the ground is essential to being a more "well-rounded" fighter. This should be blended smoothly with the stand up WCK skills.

It depends on what a person wants. Look, boxing and BJJ are both great and a person can practice either and develop realistic skills in those areas. If that's all they want to do, that's their perogative. To be a well-rounded fighter, however, requires our training be well-rounded. FWIW, in my view WCK is a "clinch" method.

There are some points that have not come up yet on this thread. Do we keep the traditional WCK forms? Do we modify the forms to reflect what we discover to be more functional and realistic? Do we keep the wooden dummy?

Any form or linked set is useless as training (it won't develop skills). If you want to retain them as a teaching device, that is up to the individual. But I think they are more trouble than they are worth (which is why we don't see forms used in functional arts).

As far as the dummy goes, it depends on how you use it.

Here's a thought that I had.....develop a "san sik" system of "separate points" as in Ku Lo Wing Chun. Break out of the traditional forms those movements that are key to the WCK body structure as well as those movements proven to be functional in a realistic sparring situation. Develop them as short "san sik"sequences that are practiced solo, with a partner in a two-man "set" format, applied on the dummy, and in sparring. This would be similar to a boxer that works specific combos solo, against the focus mitts, on the heavy bag, and in sparring. This "san sik system" could be either a supplement to "traditional" WCK, or its own independant version of WCK. It would allow one to focus on and develop those WCK movements that are the most functional and useful. But now the question becomes....which parts of the forms would you break out as a san sik? What movements of your own would you put into a san sik? Here's an example:

Bong-Lop Da...solo...two-man version = classic Lop Da drill...practiced on the dummy...worked into sparring against a resisting opponent.

In my view, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. What we need to do is realize that for WCK or any martial art to be a functional MA, that we need to approach our learning/training as a functional MA. And to do that, we need to look at the common characteristics of all proven functional martial arts. If we do that, we see they all use the same "process", where the learning/training/fighting corresponds 1-to-1-to-1. We see that functional martial arts are skill-based activities. We see that they focus on results in personal performance. That sparring is the core of their training. Etc. We also need to get rid of the traditional worldview, and the associated magical thinking, because that is a signficant obstacle that holds us back.

[JPinAZ]

Hey!! Who stole Mr. Niehoff's login & password and posted for him?? This last post sounds like something that comes from a pro-WCK guy, not the regular T we all know and love....
This post actually makes it hard to disagree with him..... crazy......

[KPM]

The "easy" way to tell if you are using WCK is to see if you are actually using WCK -- are you regularly and consistently using the tools of WCK in your sparring. WCK has a relatively small "tool belt", and if you are not using most of the tools in your sparring, then I'd suggest there is something "wrong" with what you are doing (your approach).

---But that begs the question....how do you develop the "tools" of WCK that are functional and realistic? By practicing the traditional forms? By doing the traditional two man drills? This goes back to my prior question...how do you "functionalize" WCK without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and having it become something else? How much of the "traditional" WCK base do you continue to use and practice?


FWIW, in my view WCK is a "clinch" method.

---There's a good starting point then. How do you practice and develop WCK methods in the clinch?



Any form or linked set is useless as training (it won't develop skills). If you want to retain them as a teaching device, that is up to the individual. But I think they are more trouble than they are worth (which is why we don't see forms used in functional arts).

----Then from where do you get your essential WCK "tools" that you mentioned previously?

As far as the dummy goes, it depends on how you use it.

---I tend to look upon it as a rather sophisticated heavy bag. :-)



In my view, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.


----Its not "reinventing" the wheel, just "reformatting" the wheel. Its just as Leung Jan did when he retired to his hometown in Ku Lo. He reformatted the previous WCK he had learned into a system of san sik that included what he considered to be the essential elements needed to fight with WCK. From what I understand, the Ku Lo system was Leung Jan's version of a "functionalized" WCK for his day and time. Same or very similar content, just a different teaching format.



What we need to do is realize that for WCK or any martial art to be a functional MA, that we need to approach our learning/training as a functional MA. And to do that, we need to look at the common characteristics of all proven functional martial arts. If we do that, we see they all use the same "process", where the learning/training/fighting corresponds 1-to-1-to-1.

---That sounds good. Can you lay out the individual steps in a bit more detail for us? That would seem to form a good "blueprint" to follow.

We also need to get rid of the traditional worldview, and the associated magical thinking, because that is a signficant obstacle that holds us back.

---I agree. I've been burned by that type of mindset in the past. Thanks Terence. Good post. Let's keep it up.

[KPM]

Hey Victor!

A "functionalized" wing chun will look something like JKD. Not exactly like it - but the basic approach of a functionalized wing chun has to have certain things going for it that do resemble the path Bruce Lee took in a number of ways.

---Seems we are thinking along the same lines. Some of the inspiration I have had for "functionalizing" my own WCK has come from seeing Ron Balicki's JKD. He does a lot of things that are straight up WCK. But then there are others that deviate, but that wouldn't have to. For instance, he does punching combos on the focus mitts that are standard kickboxing. But the same combos could be done with WCK punches rather than boxing punches. Many of the "functional" drills he does in a kickboxing format would become WCK if he was simply using the right body structure.


1) A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more "typical" wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

----I agree. The footwork I have been using comes primarily from TWC for those reasons, though some of the JKD footwork is appropriate as well. What I have found that DOESN'T work well is dragging the feet when stepping and trying to keep the weight on the heels.




but the line between this and a more "boxing-like" approach to these punches can get very thin. Very thin indeed.

---Again, I agree. But only as long as the proper body structure is used. This I learned from watching Alan Orr's videos.


---So how do you go about "functionalizing" your WCK from a TWC perspective? Do you break out techniques from the forms and drill them for application? Do you ignore the forms and just work the essential "tools" in a sparring format? What are the things that you are finding to work the best and most consistently in realistic sparring? Thanks Victor.

[t_niehoff]

---But that begs the question....how do you develop the "tools" of WCK that are functional and realistic? By practicing the traditional forms? By doing the traditional two man drills? This goes back to my prior question...how do you "functionalize" WCK without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" and having it become something else? How much of the "traditional" WCK base do you continue to use and practice?

It's not a baby-bathwater matter. Forms and unrealistic drills can't by their very nature develop functional/realistic skills/tools. They can at most be used as learning/teaching devices, although in my view, the disadvantages of using them as learning/teaching devices outweighs their usefulness.

How do you develop anything to be functional/realistic? By using them realistically -- and that means using them in sparring or realistic drills (which are snippets of sparring). You see, if you practice tan sao in forms and unrealistic drills, like chi sao, and don't use regularly and consistently in sparring, you will never develop it into a realistic skill. That only comes by using your tan sao regularly and consistently in sparring.

In my view, the forms and traditional drills is not WCK -- that is "the curriculum". Just as a math textbook is not math. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK's approach/tools. You can do the forms and traditional drills forever and you're not "doing WCK" (just like hitting the heavy bag and skipping rope is not boxing). Skill in WCK comes from "doing WCK", and the more you "do" it, just like with any skill, the better you get. You learn and develop boxing skills by boxing, you learn and develop grappling skills by grappling, and you learn and develop WCK by fighting.

---There's a good starting point then. How do you practice and develop WCK methods in the clinch?

BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground. Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting. So how do you think we develop WCK as a dirty clinch boxing method? By doing it, by controlling while hitting in the clinch. FWIW, I'm not talking about greco-type clinches, but dirty-boxing-type clinches.

Chi sao is an unrealistic representation of that sort of clinch. This is why most of our drills are contacdt, attached drills.

----Then from where do you get your essential WCK "tools" that you mentioned previously?

Where do BJJ and boxing practitioners get their tools -- they don't have forms/linked sets?

---I tend to look upon it as a rather sophisticated heavy bag. :-)

In a sense, yes, I agree.

----Its not "reinventing" the wheel, just "reformatting" the wheel. Its just as Leung Jan did when he retired to his hometown in Ku Lo. He reformatted the previous WCK he had learned into a system of san sik that included what he considered to be the essential elements needed to fight with WCK. From what I understand, the Ku Lo system was Leung Jan's version of a "functionalized" WCK for his day and time. Same or very similar content, just a different teaching format.

It was a different teaching format but it wasn't "functionalized". The key to functional training is the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between learning-training-fighting, so that you learn what you will do in fighting as you will do it, train it realsitically as you learned it, and then do it in fighting as you learned and trained it.

---That sounds good. Can you lay out the individual steps in a bit more detail for us? That would seem to form a good "blueprint" to follow.

I'll tell you how to begin "the work" -- get some training partners, start in contact, and fight. You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc. Try to use your WCK tools to control your opponent while striking him. If you do that, you will encounter many problems. Set aside the "conventional wisdom" you have been told by the theoretical nonfighters and fantasy-based guys in WCK (which IME is mostly wrong), and try to figure out answers for those problems. Keep doing contact sparring. Keep critically examining what is working, why it is working, etc. and what isn't working, why it isn't working, etc. Then you will be on the road toward making your WCK functional.

[k gledhill]

VT is functional...you just dont see it T ribbet

[t_niehoff]

VT is functional...you just dont see it T ribbet

I'll tell you want I don't see: the VT fighters that can make what they do in training work in fighting as they train to. It seems they can fight well behind closed doors or on the streets when no one is looking, but for some reason, any other time, their skills mysteriously disappear. But that doesn't stop them from posting tons of videos of them doing chi sao or forms or demos of those skill.

The truth is as close as your nearest MMA gym. You can't fake performance. If you can make what you learn and practice to do in training work in fighting as you train to do it, then it should be a very simple thing to show. Boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT, etc. all seem to have absolutely no trouble doing just that. Only the fantasy-VT "fighters" do, the guys with all the street fights. You know the type.

[YungChun]

The truth is as close as your nearest MMA gym. You can't fake performance.

In that case the "truth" is where he trains/teaches every day if I am not mistaken..

[YungChun]

1) A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more "typical" wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

And using a slightly more up-on-your-toes footwork doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice rootedness and stability for mobility - for once you've "delivered" (or even "as" you're delivering) enough weaponry (punches/kicks) to get to the close infight range your rooted and stable wing chun instincts and training can and should take over.

I see a lot of top MMA/NHB fighters that are no more "mobile" than standard WCK footwork, and in fact perhaps less so--WSL was quite "mobile"..

"Their mobility" comes from the "when" and the "why", which way and under what conditions they move--they just move--so can we.. It appears to be more of a personal stylistic choice, some very good fighters move less than VT folks some move more but few are moving around any more than needed.. With few exceptions--not bouncy bounce at all--not on their toes at all--not like the 'dancing boxer'--at all.. WCK footwork can allow one to move left, back, right, forward, and combinations thereof just as fast as X and sometimes faster IMO..

[k gledhill]

wow what a rebutal Terence doesnt believe so it cant be true your the one living in fantasy land . ribbet
Yung Chuns right : ) a lot of guys x train there...I teach for the fighthouse gym ..VT.