What Wing Chun has taught me

[sihing]

James, in summary (and no offence here), you have no experience of living in violent situations or of violent encounters and little to no experience of MMA or full contact... am I right? Well, I know this is a discussion board and I've no right or reason to want to chase you off it, but how exactly are you able to qualify an opinion on the subject of this thread?!

And HW8, I'd be interested (honestly not trying to call you on this) to hear more detail about the way you practice: the full-contact training that equips you for the mean streets...

Anerlich, obviously not enough, cos I've still never worked out wtf RBSD stands for!

EDIT! Aaaaahhhh, satori! Reality Based Self Defence, right?

I'm more lover than fighter for sure bro I avoid violent situations whenever I can, but like everyone else sometimes it comes our way. For me I've been lucky to not have many situations where it has gotten too out of hand. I have experience in full contact, I used to spar alot in the old days, but for now the emphasises is on proper mechanics and building the right structure from the training (we do have WC specific sparring platforms, where we can go pretty hard with some control, this stuff I am training more and more). Never trained UFC stuff.

Regarding your comment about me and whether or not I'm qualified to raise an opinion on this thread, well the topic is "What WC has taught me", all that practice the art can comment on that. I replied to your post because your comparison was wrong IMO, "Typical Wing Chun Practice session" vs. Street/UFC fight. Both are two different things IMO. WC and the application of it are two different things as well, one is a training method, the other is me fighting or defending myself. I don't really care if you think I don't have the qualifications or not to make a comment, it's a free forum, anyone can say anything, and all we can talk about here is what we "Think" about things, as there is usually no personal contact between people. How does one talk about fighting, when all we have here is keyboards and experiences. Your experience is just that yours, not mine, so therefore it's all theory to me. If you want to talk about fighting, then face to face is the only way to discuss things of that nature.

James

[t_niehoff]

WC and the application of it are two different things as well, one is a training method, the other is me fighting or defending myself.

This is the sort of thinking that goes to the heart of the problem with TMAs and why they don't have functional training methods.

You learn and train to ride a bike by riding the bike. You learn and train to swim by getting in the water and swimming. You learn and train to surf by getting on the board, going out into the ocean, and surfing. You learn and develop a skill by performing that skill. The real training for any skill is performing the target skill itself. You can't learn and train WCK apart from fighting, as WCK is fighting.

[sihing]

This is the sort of thinking that goes to the heart of the problem with TMAs and why they don't have functional training methods.

You learn and train to ride a bike by riding the bike. You learn and train to swim by getting in the water and swimming. You learn and train to surf by getting on the board, going out into the ocean, and surfing. You learn and develop a skill by performing that skill. The real training for any skill is performing the target skill itself. You can't learn and train WCK apart from fighting, as WCK is fighting.

This is where you and I disagree, which is okay. I look at Wing Chun as a training method only, not an application system. Like people that want to become a doctor, they don't just go and set up a practice and begin to take on patients, they go to school for years and years, to learn about medicine and how to diagnose disease and proper treatments, biology, physiology, etc..., then after that they practice Medicine by becoming doctors. WC is no different, it is teaching me specific things, things I don't already possess physically and intellectually, but the method cannot fight without a person to use what it teaches, and since none of us look at things exactly the same, nor do any of us have the same physical abilities/attributes, none of us will use it the same way. You can gain the tools that WC teaches easily by practicing the forms, chi sau/laap sau and all the other things involved with the training system, but to actually be able to use it against somone else (application of the tools), especially those with skills, you have to go out and spar/fight in a natural way, using your new skills the way you, and only you, would use them, just like no two doctors do things exactly the same way, they interpret their training/knowledge and use it they way the feel is the most efficient and natural for them. Your examples, surfing, swimming, riding a bike, throwing a baseball, shooting hoops, playing tennis are simple actions, requiring only you controling you, and nothing else. The first time you go on a surf board you fall, and continue to fall until you get used to it, as the surf is relatively the same, everywhere you go, depending on the intensity of it. If you fall in love with surfing you will become more skilled at staying on top of your board, eventually being able to surf the wave for as long as it lasts. This is very different from preventing someone from hurting you in fight while attacking them as well, you should know this...

You keeping on saying that the TMA's lack any functionality, the only way to prove that would be for you to fight each and every TMA fighter too find out yourself, your statements are way to broad to be taken seriously. Every MA/Fighting system, has good and bad practitioners, with people that can fight great and those that can't fight their way out of a paper bag, that is the way of things as it is always up to the individual and what their goals are thru Martial Arts training. I've never said anything on this forum that guarantee's success in fighting, as no one can guarantee you anything regarding how effective you will be as a fighter (not even your buddy Matt Thornton), all we can do is increase our chances by training in something, and doing so in a intense, consistent manner.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

Your examples, surfing, swimming, riding a bike, throwing a baseball, shooting hoops, playing tennis are simple actions, requiring only you controling you, and nothing else. The first time you go on a surf board you fall, and continue to fall until you get used to it, as the surf is relatively the same, everywhere you go, depending on the intensity of it. If you fall in love with surfing you will become more skilled at staying on top of your board, eventually being able to surf the wave for as long as it lasts. This is very different from preventing someone from hurting you in fight while attacking them as well, you should know this...

Physical skills are just that, physical skills.
While I understand your comparison to being a doctor and med school, being a doctor is NOT a physical skill per say, though a surgeon would argue with that

As for your above example in regards to control, while the control issue is an issue, I think T point was well made, wanna use/train WC to be effective in a fight it may be counter-productive to view WC training as different than what is need to be effective in a fight.

[t_niehoff]

This is where you and I disagree, which is okay. I look at Wing Chun as a training method only, not an application system. Like people that want to become a doctor, they don't just go and set up a practice and begin to take on patients, they go to school for years and years, to learn about medicine and how to diagnose disease and proper treatments, biology, physiology, etc..., then after that they practice Medicine by becoming doctors. WC is no different,

Yes, I know we disagree. Whether that is OK or not depends on if you care about developing functional skills. We both can't be right.

WCK is not like training to be a physician. That analogy is fundamentally flawed. WCK is a physical skill. You don't learn and develop boxing or wrestling or WCK by training like a physican does, but by training like an athlete does. In other words, you develop the target skill by doing the target skill. You can't develop fighting skill by not fighting but only by fighting.

You keeping on saying that the TMA's lack any functionality, the only way to prove that would be for you to fight each and every TMA fighter too find out yourself, your statements are way to broad to be taken seriously.

That's not true either. We can know if a general approach (like the TMA approach)to training works well or not by looking at evidence of results across populations (where are all the high level fighters TMA training produces?), and by looking to the skill-building process that we know from sport and scientific research is required to develop higher level skills and comparing that to the TMA approach.

Every MA/Fighting system, has good and bad practitioners, with people that can fight great and those that can't fight their way out of a paper bag, that is the way of things as it is always up to the individual and what their goals are thru Martial Arts training.

More poor reasoning. If you look at the functional martial arts (boxing, wrestling, MMA, sambo, judo, BJJ, etc.) you will see that individuals that do the training get functional results (are able to do what they train to do, i.e., fight with their method). How well they can do that depends, just like it does with any sport or athletic activity, by the quality and quantity of their training/practice (doing the skill itself). Contrast that to TMAs and you see the same level of results just aren't there. And this is true across populations. The TMA approach to training is simply a really poor way to develop skill.

It is abundantly clear from the evidence that fighting skill is directly related to the amount of quality fighting (sparring) you do. And this only makes sense as you develop skill by practicing the skill, not by not practicing the skill.

I've never said anything on this forum that guarantee's success in fighting, as no one can guarantee you anything regarding how effective you will be as a fighter (not even your buddy Matt Thornton), all we can do is increase our chances by training in something, and doing so in a intense, consistent manner.

Nothing guarantees success, but certainly having better fighting skill increases our chances -- significantly. And training poorly won't give you better skill. You won't get better skill by not practicing the skill.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is abundantly clear from the evidence that fighting skill is directly related to the amount of quality fighting (sparring) you do. And this only makes sense as you develop skill by practicing the skill, not by not practicing the skill.

Just to be controversial:

Why does sparring work to make you a better fighter?
Aren't drills enough?

Not as easy a question as you may think for it raises as much questions as you try to answer it.

In short, you become a better fighter because you are fighting.
But we know that is not the truth because the skills we develop are only specific to the TYPE of sparring we do, ie:
WC people sparring other WC people get very good at sparring other WC people.
One then can argue that, sparring MMA is the key, BUT we also know that sparring in a MMA environment makes you skilled at, sparring in a MMA environment:
Mats, training clothes, protective gear, ring, etc.

Of course there is transference, there is always some transference, but allow me to continue:

Sparring is also size and weight dependant, and as such the skills you develop are based on WHO you spar against:
The timing you develop is based on how you are attacked, ex:
The timing needed to counter a MT round kick is different than a TKD round kick.
The skill needed to counter a boxing combo is different than a WC combo and vice-versa.

Sparring develops a highly specialized skill set.

Skilled MMA fighters don't do will outside their chosen skill set ( unless they come from a core system and are returning to it, and even then, there is a "loss").
Same goes for boxers, judoka, sumai and turkish oil wrestlers.

So, I put this forth to you, my fellow jedi's and Padawan's ( yes I am a geek, but a geek that can kick your ass):
Perhaps its not the sparring, but all the drilling, that makes one an effective fighter.
We certainly drill more than we spar.
Perhaps if we drill in a way that makes the "skills" obtained in sparring, obtaniable in drilling, sparring, while never being redunant, will be put in its proper "perspective, as a tool to develop certain skills, but not the end of all skills.

Perhaps...

[AndrewS]

Terence writes in response to James:

WCK is not like training to be a physician. That analogy is fundamentally flawed. WCK is a physical skill. You don't learn and develop boxing or wrestling or WCK by training like a physican does, but by training like an athlete does. In other words, you develop the target skill by doing the target skill. You can't develop fighting skill by not fighting but only by fighting

You're arguing over analogies. There's more commonality than difference between the two disciplines in my experience.

Learn a set of tools

Apply a set of tools

Learn from applying your set of tools

Apply a set of tools

repeat.

One learns medicine through its practice.

SJR writes:

Perhaps its not the sparring, but all the drilling, that makes one an effective fighter.
We certainly drill more than we spar.
Perhaps if we drill in a way that makes the "skills" obtained in sparring, obtaniable in drilling, sparring, while never being redunant, will be put in its proper "perspective, as a tool to develop certain skills, but not the end of all skills.

I think you are on to something there. At the end of the day, there is no absolute measure of fighting ability past your ability to fight a specific person at a specific time. Coordination, agililty, power, strength, speed, balance, endurance- these are more definable. Grow them and your likelihood of prevailing on any specific day iagainst any person increases. Drills should develop these qualities; sparring, in a sense, a drill to integrate them.

Andrew

[sanjuro_ronin]

Drills should develop these qualities; sparring, in a sense, a drill to integrate them.

Taking my "devils advocate" position even further, integrate them in a specific context.
But what happens outside that context?
A boxer has awesome skill in a boxing match from integrating his boxing skills in sparring, but how well will they serve him in a wrestling match?
IF he wins that match (KO), it will be from skills honed in drilling, not sparring.
Drilling = developement of power and speed
Sparring= cardio and timing in a activity specfic event

[AndrewS]

SJR writes:

Taking my "devils advocate" position even further, integrate them in a specific context.
But what happens outside that context?
A boxer has awesome skill in a boxing match from integrating his boxing skills in sparring, but how well will they serve him in a wrestling match?
IF he wins that match (KO), it will be from skills honed in drilling, not sparring.
Drilling = developement of power and speed
Sparring= cardio and timing in a activity specfic event

So the boxer doesn't know how to wrestle and wins on strength, power, and wind, things developed in drilling. I'll buy that, though it would require a gross mismatch of attributes between boxer and wrestler.

Andrew

[couch]

So, I put this forth to you, my fellow jedi's and Padawan's ( yes I am a geek, but a geek that can kick your ass):
Perhaps its not the sparring, but all the drilling, that makes one an effective fighter.
We certainly drill more than we spar.
Perhaps if we drill in a way that makes the "skills" obtained in sparring, obtaniable in drilling, sparring, while never being redunant, will be put in its proper "perspective, as a tool to develop certain skills, but not the end of all skills.

Perhaps...

Why not have your cake and eat it too?

I think the drills come before the sparring. Then you have both in the mix. First you 'drill' something (like a jab-cross combo) on the bag, then you take it to a partner to help move with it and have another body in front of you, then you spar with it. It may be true that many people stop at the drilling part (or read: one/two-step sparring).

[sanjuro_ronin]

SJR writes:


So the boxer doesn't know how to wrestle and wins on strength, power, and wind, things developed in drilling. I'll buy that, though it would require a gross mismatch of attributes between boxer and wrestler.

Andrew

What I meant was, if the boxer wins, obviously with strikes, it will be base don attributes developed via drills, not sparring.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why not have your cake and eat it too?

I think the drills come before the sparring. Then you have both in the mix. First you 'drill' something (like a jab-cross combo) on the bag, then you take it to a partner to help move with it and have another body in front of you, then you spar with it. It may be true that many people stop at the drilling part (or read: one/two-step sparring).

I like pie better than cake, MUFFin pie

[t_niehoff]

Why not have your cake and eat it too?

I think the drills come before the sparring. Then you have both in the mix. First you 'drill' something (like a jab-cross combo) on the bag, then you take it to a partner to help move with it and have another body in front of you, then you spar with it. It may be true that many people stop at the drilling part (or read: one/two-step sparring).

As I see it, functional drills (drills that build functional skills) are "snippets" of fighting -- where you take a limited, fighting situation show the trainee what to do, and then let them practice doing it. To me this is what it means to drill: to do repeatedly practice doing what you are going to do as you are going to do it against a genuinely resisting opponent. Drills are useful but need to be integrated into your game, and you can't do that without playing the game.

[couch]

As I see it, functional drills (drills that build functional skills) are "snippets" of fighting -- where you take a limited, fighting situation show the trainee what to do, and then let them practice doing it. To me this is what it means to drill: to do repeatedly practice doing what you are going to do as you are going to do it against a genuinely resisting opponent. Drills are useful but need to be integrated into your game, and you can't do that without playing the game.

Right! What the h3ll are we arguing about? LOL

[t_niehoff]

Terence writes in response to James:

You're arguing over analogies. There's more commonality than difference between the two disciplines in my experience.

Learn a set of tools

Apply a set of tools

Learn from applying your set of tools

Apply a set of tools

repeat.

One learns medicine through its practice.

Hey Andrew, I'm not arguing over analogies -- I'm saying that he (James) used an analogy, and it is flawed. I didn't offer an analogy. WCK is an athletic, physical activity and I said that to develop skill in an athletic, phhysical activity (any athletic, physical activity, including those I cited as examples), we need to treat it as such. You learn and develop physical skill by practicing the skill. Skill is the application.

I don't even like the "tool" analogy you used (any longer - though I once used it myself)! That's part of the TMA "view" which separates everything, including movement (tool) from function(result). They're skills: movement to get the result (your ability to *do* something, to get a result). So why not call them skills? When you learn basketball do you learn and develop "basketball tools" then leanr to use those tools? Or do you learn the skills (the things you need to be able to *do*) that you need to play the game? The trouble with calling things by something other than what they are is that it only encourages confusion.