Forget the History, Forget the Politics

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by JPinAZ
"I think the term 'striking' has to be qualified with this statement. Standing and trading punches with some covering up (as seen in many MMA/UFC fights) is pretty easy to learn. Being able to shut someone down, control thier COG and strike them while at the same time taking away their ability to effectively strike in return is something else entirely. And it's a lot harder to learn IMO.
So it really depends the type of striking one is talking about."

Followed by this from m1k3:

"Being able to shut someone down, control their COG and limbs setting up takedowns, throws, sweeps and submissions on them while at the same time taking away their ability to effectively to shut you down, control your COG or limbs and set up takedowns, throws, sweeps and submissions in return is something else entirely.

That is closer to the truth."

"Also your UFC/MMA striking is dealing with striking and the sudden transitions to a grappling game, vertical or horizontal."


***NOW THIS exchange is a whole thread turner in itself.

Firstly, I agree with all of what JP said here. It is harder to learn to strike while controlling the opponent and taking his COG away, so that he can't strike back - as opposed to simply trading punches and covering up, which many mma fighters engage in. It is definitely harder to learn, and it takes longer to learn.

Whereas m1k3 relates the "shutdown approach" as simply being a transition to grappling.

IMO, one should strive to learn both approaches, because mma events aside, you don't really want to go to the ground in a real street confrontation if you can avoid it, because too many things can go wrong. So taking a wing chun, close quarter, standing shutdown approach is very big on my list of things to train.

But reality is reality, so learning how to grapple is also a must, imo. Because in real confrontations a transition from striking to a standing clinch or a leg shoot (or some rough equivalent of these things, ala the streetfighter headlock that sanjuro alluded to earlier) could come in a heartbeat...

and the wing chun-only fighter will then be at a major disadvantage.

[Knifefighter]

IMO, one should strive to learn both approaches, because mma events aside, you don't really want to go to the ground in a real street confrontation if you can avoid it, because too many things can go wrong.

Tell that to all the police officers who have been taking suspects to the ground to control them for years.

[sihing]

I have a perspective on this, and it goes right the heart of the training issue question that's also being discussed on this thread:

I teach wing chun and I teach catch (submission) wrestling...and I've noticed that most people pick up the wrestling quicker, ie.- they're better able to actually use what they're learning in a shorter amount of time than is the case with the wing chun....

because in wrestling class, you learn, you drill, you compete...

you learn, you drill, you compete....

In other words, there's a built-in mechanism (and I suspect the same is true with other grappling arts as well) wherein you can "compete" (roll) very frequently, ie. virtually every class, using some limited amount of techniques and principles very soon after learning the moves. And of course the idea is to get to the point relativey quickly wherein you're rolling competitively using a great deal of different principles, strategies, and techniques.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a "sparring" mechanism (rolling) that's introduced into grappling very quickly - as opposed to having to spend many months (possibly a year or two, or three?) learning wing chun forms, chi sao, drills, etc...

before you actually spar competitively.

And this is an unfortunate part of what has been many appoaches to wing chun, imo. I think many schools of wing chun have spent inordinate amounts of time on forms, drills, chi sao, and wooden dummy before doing any serious sparring on a frequent basis.

Another thing to consider here is the fact that you can "tap out" in submission grappling; whereas in sparring it can become an artform in itself trying to teach people how to spar with contact (including headshots and kicks) with some power.

It would seem that it's harder to modulate the pain (and the fear) factor in striking than in grappling.

It doesn't have to be, but unfortunately it often is a problem for many people trying to teach wing chun.

Answer? USE OF GLOVES, HEADGEAR, PADDING, ETC. And more frequent sparring. And less power trips by those who are conducting the classes, ie.- how often do they spar with the students? Do they encourage their students to be competitive with them?

Too many wing chun people have been resistant to these things, even today, it seems to me.

I can't totally agree with what you say above. I agree that in the end, the usage of gloves, headgear, padding and the such is a good thing, but if it is too early in the training, then you are not going to be using what you are learning, plain and simple. If that is the case, then why learn the method if you are unable to use it? I'm all for taking the training intensity and methodology of MMA (since to me it is more about conditioning training than learning a particular style of fighting), and incorporating it into how we learn to be more effective in combat, it is just the timing that I have issues with.

WC is a training method, to be used as one see's fit in application. Sparring is not a test for one learning the WC method; it is more along the lines of learning how to apply the teaching. To me, when I train chi sau for example, that is when I am testing my WC. For example, most people roll in dbl arm chi sau, tan/fok vs. fok/bong, and then reverse rolls; because they are taught this is the way the drill works. Well guess what, I roll this why more so because we make each other do it, rather than just conforming to the standard platform. When my fok is over your tan, the tan guy should feel it collapsing, as the fok is taking the center, to alleviate this, we bong, since this is the usage of bong concept. This is done simultaneously on both sides in reversed roles, not simply as rule to adhere to, but as a way to bring about some coordination and to save time. If your fok is over my tan and I feel no pressure, I then enter your space automatically and take your center to hit, to then tell you why/how that happened. This is just an example of the training concept, to bring about a skill within one that wasn't there before. Why we learn that skill and how it is used in combat is another thread.

The thing we have to watch out for is that we can't look at things like "if he does this, I do that" type of thinking. With all the media coverage of MMA, I think people are falling into this trap, and unfortunately Victor I think you are one of them (please correct me if I am wrong).

You see what they are doing, and say, how would I counter that. I look at them and see a controlled environment, set up to bring about a particular form of competitive fighting, which to me means a skills comparison between two individuals interested in testing their abilities against one another in combat. I have no interest in that, but rather train because it is fun, and gives me some self defence abilities. If I was concerned with how I would fight one of them, I would stop training exclusively in Wing Chun, and start to train in the local MMA gym, to learn how to play the "game". Of course my WC skills would be in use, but I would need to add other skills to be able to deal with them in their own arena.

For me if I never use my skills for the rest of my life, especially when the opportunity arises, then I have succeeded. I already know that I am totally beatable, and that if I wanted to, thru cross training and the such, I could be more totally effective as a fighter. The thing is you "gotta be a moron to want to be a fighter" (to borrow a quote).

James

[Wayfaring]

Are you kidding me? Striking has one dimension, standing... and all the principles are pretty much the same.

Spoken like a true grappler. There are many dimensions in striking. There are several dimensions in striking just to do with your position in relationship to your opponent - front, side, flanking. There's striking from top positions on the ground, striking against a backstop, striking from guard, striking from a clinch - knees, elbows, legs, hands. But I will agree on one point - I've seen a lot of grapplers with one dimensional striking. That's why Marcelo Garcia lost his first MMA fight.

Grappling has two dimensions, both standing and on the ground. To complicate matters further, the principles are contradictory from one position to the other... create space on the bottom inferior positions, but shut it down when you are in danger of submission; however, in the bottom guard position, shut down space when working submissions, but open it when in danger of being passed; shut down space from the top; create angles from the guard, but shut them down inside the guard; shut down angles from the bottom non-guard positions, but create them from the top.

Throw in the fact that there are literally thousands of different techniques to remember for these positions and their contradictory principles and grappling is significantly harder to learn.

That's a really good summary. One of these years some of these things are going to all flow together in harmony.

I don't think either is easy to learn. It all seems like a lot of hard work to me, and after you spend a lot of time in it, some things start to flow a little better. But then there's the next thing to learn that certainly doesn't flow. But it's all a lot of fun and certainly better than just pushing weights around in spandex.

[Wayfaring]

I can't totally agree with what you say above. I agree that in the end, the usage of gloves, headgear, padding and the such is a good thing, but if it is too early in the training, then you are not going to be using what you are learning, plain and simple. If that is the case, then why learn the method if you are unable to use it? I'm all for taking the training intensity and methodology of MMA (since to me it is more about conditioning training than learning a particular style of fighting), and incorporating it into how we learn to be more effective in combat, it is just the timing that I have issues with.

You know the best I can put together I think to learn individual techniques you have to isolate the movements, then gradually add in aliveness. In wing chun, especially working on the bridge, I don't know if padding helps a lot. So I think you have to break down classes and work on a few isolated related skills. Then pad up and work all of them together a little harder with more intensity. That's just an idea I have for an approach. But limiting the movements to a select few while still preserving the aliveness of the scenario to me is what I'm looking for.

[anerlich]

IMO what makes pure striking, in general, difficult is the speed and timing required to perform well against someone else trying to strike you and not be struck.

Pure grappling, especially on the ground, is challenging because of the (more) three-dimensional nature of the fight and the wider variety of possibilities.

The lines are blurred every time you try to "control" someone to hit them, use a wall or the cage, G&P, etc. You won't have G&P opportunities against a reasonable all-rounder unless you can get a takedown, and be able to control the other guy from a top position, i.e. unless you have some basic standup and ground grappling skills. You can't strike on the wall unless you have basic grappling skills, and you won't stay there long if you can't defend against takedowns.

It's true there is some crap MMA out there. Lots of crap WC too.

The best MMA should have seamless integration of striking and grappling in every situation. The sport's probably still too young to have many guys that can actually do that at a high level, but the situation continues to improve.

I believe BJJ is way more complex than WC. Complex != better or worse.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
"IMO, one should strive to learn both approaches, because mma events aside, you don't really want to go to the ground in a real street confrontation if you can avoid it, because too many things can go wrong."

Followed by Knifefighter with this:

"Tell that to all the police officers who have been taking suspects to the ground to control them for years."


***Forget the police, I'll tell you about two near incidents that happened to me within one hour of each other exactly two weeks ago, today...on Friday, November 21ft.

Walking from one appointment to another on my job, and now going through the Fulton Street mall area here in Brooklyn...decide to duck into a very narrow store to get a coffee to go...the coffee-to-go counter is in the back..and I must have brushed some guy as I passed him by (he was standing near the front)...

And I start to hear some real loud talking: "Hey buddy, you just brushed me, what's up with that? You got some sort of a problem"...by a guy who's now standing right in front of me and in my face. (He followed me to the back).

He's standing really close to me - and in a very narrow and crowded store.

I'm angry at this point that he's playing this intimidation game, but also being on alert, and so I say this: "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I brushed you" - but with a very intense look in my eyes - while clearly staring him down at that moment. (His face and mine couldn't have been more than 12 inches apart). My words said one thing - but the body language was basically telling him "_uck you".

But while I was facing him I was also trying to size up his posture, his legs, where his arms were, which vital targets were exposed, (ie.- a knee to the balls, straight blast punches or palm strikes directly to his nose and mouth area), etc.

In other words, sizing him up for striking, if need be. And for taking his space away with forward pressure. And for controlling his balance.

Because the last thing I'd want to do in a place like this is go to the ground with this guy if he decided to press the issue into a confrontation. That would be nuts on my part if I could avoid it. If this was going to be a fight I wanted it to be a very quick standing fight and and then a very quick exit.

What happened was that he turned his face away in disgust, and I left the place immediately. The coffee idea was history.

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

About 40 minute later, I'm now in the Starbucks on Court Street, (just the other side of the Fulton mall area) - and I decide to go to the bathroom. There are a whole bunch of boxes stacked high in two piles leading to the bathroom. So the passage between them is very narrow - only wide enough for one person at a time to pass through.

I'm on the bowl doing my business about 4-5 minutes later when I hear this:

"Hey you, get out of the bathroom right now"...while whoever he is is pounding on the door and screaming these words at the top of his lungs. (This guy sounded like a friggin' lunatic!)

He continues, again at the top of his lungs, while banging the door again: "Get out now or I'm getting the key!"

Now I'm really p i s s e d off, and I say, loudly: "Hey buddy, I'm on the bowl, and I'm not coming out until I'm ready to come out!"

So about a minute or so later I'm ready to come out, not knowing what to expect when I open the door, other than the fact that this clearly could turn into a fight. This guy sounds like he's crazy, and I'm in no mood for any more of this garbage.

He's standing right between the boxes as I come out, and blocking the way. (The two piles of stacked boxes were about six feet away from the door to the bathroom - so by the time that I got to where he was standing I not only got a good look at him - but I saw that he had a friend with him....behind him about another five feet from where he was, and leaning on some of the other boxes at that area, although not paying much attention to me.

But Mr. lunatic was. So I walked up to where he was standing - and he didn't budge; he's now purposely blocking my way, and we're pretty much nose-to-nose (nothing's being said as of yet).

I start to back away slowly, and he starts to walk through the two piles - when I decided to stop. And I'm just staring him down now, silently.

And now he says very softly and meekly, "Excuse me."

I say, "Sure, no problem" with the same intense "_uck you" stare as I back up real slow and turn to let him pass...and we always stay basically nose-to-nose with each other and facing each other head on. He then says, referring to me, "Tough guy". (But again, very quietly and with no real aggression).

He goes into the bathroom and I pass his friend and leave the Starbucks.

Again, it would have been insanity to go to the ground (if it came to a fight with this guy) if I could avoid it.

Is it always possible to avoid a clinch or takedown to a groundfight? Of course not. But there's lots of wing chun moves that can be used (as well as other types of striking)...to try and keep a fight standing - until the other guy drops.

[TenTigers]

let's also realize that the reason the police take the perp down to the ground is to handcuff him and take him unharmed into custody.

[chusauli]

My real important question to you Vic, is:

Did you wash your hands after you took your dump? Or did you have a surprise for Mr. Lunatic?

The oft quoted all fights go to the ground is based on police work - cops take the perp to the ground to get compliance and cuff them, (albeit largely unhurt) as Ric says.

Its not that you're going to the ground and finish a person there in a self defense scenario, especially in tight quarters and outnumbered, or with possible weapons.

Vic, much of the posturing was a good deterrent. In NYC, stuff like this happens everyday.

[Wayfaring]

I never realized it's so hard to get a cup of coffee in NYC.

[Knifefighter]

***Forget the police, I'll tell you about two near incidents that happened to me within one hour of each other exactly two weeks ago, today...on Friday, November 21ft.

LOL @ using two incidents where there was no actual physical confrontation to make a case for not going to the ground. Talk about theoretical non-fighting.

[Knifefighter]

The oft quoted all fights go to the ground is based on police work - cops take the perp to the ground to get compliance and cuff them, (albeit largely unhurt) as Ric says.

Its not that you're going to the ground and finish a person there in a self defense scenario, especially in tight quarters and outnumbered, or with possible weapons.

LOL again. Where do you guys get this stuff?

Do you think the police somehow don't have to worry about weapons, being outnumbered or being in tight quarters?

And if taking someone to the ground is the most effective way to control and cuff them, doesn't it seem like that would also be the most effective way to control or finish someone who is trying to hurt you?

[chusauli]

In police work, you have a partner or back up.

You want the person on the ground first where they comply, while you with weapon, command them to kneel, legs crossed, with hands on head, until further help arrives. If you have a partner, you could simply have them lie on the ground and snap cuffs on them.

At least this is what I learned in my combat shooting classes. But of course, I am no LE guy.

In both of Vic's cases, he was wise not to go to the ground.

[Knifefighter]

In police work, you have a partner or back up.

Many departments have solo street patrols. There are hundreds of thousands of incidents where officers have had physical confrontations with suspects without backup.

You want the person on the ground first where they comply, while you with weapon, command them to kneel, legs crossed, with hands on head, until further help arrives. If you have a partner, you could simply have them lie on the ground and snap cuffs on them.

That would be nice. Too bad that luxury is not always available.

In both of Vic's cases, he was wise not to go to the ground.

Like I said... talk about theoretical non-fighting. There wasn't even a physical altercation. You have no idea what would have happened one way or the other.

[chusauli]

As a rational, law-abiding human being...you think Vic should have gotten into a fight?

Most fights are stupid - if you win, you are subject to legal aftermath. Is that all worthwhile? For a cup of coffee? Or bumping into someone in a crowded coffee shop? Or some jerk who is impatient and disturbing his dump? Is that really worthwhile?

Makes me wonder? The fuse that short; that trigger so easy to pull?