Mixing Wing Chun with a grappling style?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Want to weigh in on two things, here.

First, yes there are some elements of grappling in chi sao - but to simply call chi sao a form of grappling (with striking thrown in) is just plain foolish. The object of wing chun is to hit your opponent. And while it is true that chi sao teaches more than just how and when to hit, that doesn't change the fact that hitting is the goal.

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

The fact that both systems look so amazingly alike and yet both men have always been so reticent to bad mouth the other (or accuse the other of stealing)...

says volumes.

BUT THIS IS AN OLD, DEAD HORSE....or at least it should be.

[Wayfaring]

I don't accept that "live hand" is the sole province of WC, HFY or otherwise. Or that wrestlers can't do it and don't do it.

Yeah, they are among the best at it out of all the strictly grappling arts. Judo second. BJJ mostly lags behind here. I think WC can contribute here to retain the striking related aspect. Muy Thai has a good clinch system that retains striking.

... the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus

God that was so funny I had to go look it up. I'm left with the impression that anerlich is slightly more nerdy than I previously thought, although still pretty funny.

[Wayfaring]

First, yes there are some elements of grappling in chi sao - but to simply call chi sao a form of grappling (with striking thrown in) is just plain foolish. The object of wing chun is to hit your opponent. And while it is true that chi sao teaches more than justl how and when to hit, that doesn't change the fact that hitting is the goal.

If you look at it only in absolutes it is foolish. And granted openings in chi sau are responded to mostly with punches. (Although I have been neck clinched / snapped down from a chi sau opening and offbalanced by someone stepping on my foot).

But bear with me. A bridge is grappling in a very broad sense. It represents restricted movement. Books like Renzo Gracie's talking about fight ranges speak of free movement, restricted movement, and ground. Now you can say that the object of chi sau is to strike your opponent. But if you develop skill in control of the bridge, and what presents itself is a takedown, will you take it or not? The kicks in wing chun are kind of designed to remove the supporting balance and take someone to the ground.

So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

The distant cousin theory that may make sense but will never be substantiated. They are different now. You're right that's a dead horse. But two distinct points of reference kind of negate the made up thing.

[anerlich]

God that was so funny I had to go look it up. I'm left with the impression that anerlich is slightly more nerdy than I previously thought, although still pretty funny.

I work in IT. I'm probably guilty as charged.

Yes, Virginia, chi sao is both

Who's this Virginia? Does she know Hermes Trismegistus?

And this is precisely why I don't want to discuss things with the HFY cultmembers

How about giving the rest of us a break from your lectures for a while too?

[vingtsunplaya]

I tell you what, why don't you prove that HFY existed prior to Garrett Gee. Show me a single HFY practitioner, show me Wang Ming, show me anyone that even knew of or heard of HFY prior to Garrett Gee. I'm waiting.

You can't do it. No one can. Because HFY didn't exist prior to Garrett Gee. He made it up.

Dude, I don't care about "reputations" among TCMAists. That proves diddly-squat. Most TCMA is fantasy fu. How did these people earn their reputations? Certainly not by fighting, not using their martial arts. Not by producing fighters. No, we have people like you who believe without any real, solid evidence the nonsense they hear.

Terrance,

I'm not really sure what you think I believe or don't believe. I was simply trying to tell you that people with some serious MA knowledge have great respect for Sifu Gee. As far as what I believe he can or cannot do, I don't know, I've never seen the man operate. But, I know people who have, people whom I trust, and they say he has real skill. Now I'm sure you'll try and say something snappy about me "trusting the wrong people" or something juvenile like that, but these are all guys whom I have seen beat alot of @$$ with little effort and they can't touch Sifu Gee. Now, call it HFY, call it TWC, call it yourmomisafat*****, I don't care. What it boils down to is that he is the Grandmanster of an entire system of MA which, if you did any research at all instead of wasting everybody's time on this forum, you would find out HFY can directly trace its roots to the Boxer rebellion and beyond. The symbology present throughout the system shows, without a doubt, it was not "made up" by any one man. That is a fact, and is indisputable so don't even try without actually doing the research and citing me your sources (come on, your a lawyer right?). Hopefully JP can teach you a thing or two (I don't mean through violence either) about the system and it's roots. I think if you would actually drop your unending criticism of things you don't really know anything about, you may actually learn something through all this. Even if you think the MAs of HFY are crap, the history of Chinese culture and how it plays into the system will probably humble you.

Or you could just continue to be a douche and stay stuck within your own feeble boundaries. I suppose it's no loss/gain to me either way. I know this though, you sound a LOT like the fox in the "sour grapes" story. You can't hope to be able to understand or grasp something, so you might as well bash it and ruin it for everyone else. Nice. Let me know how that works out for ya little guy. You must be a real hit at parties eh?

[t_niehoff]

Terrance,

I'm not really sure what you think I believe or don't believe. I was simply trying to tell you that people with some serious MA knowledge have great respect for Sifu Gee

Who? You talk about "people with serious knowledge" -- gung fu or martial art isn't about "knowlededge", it is about SKILL, fighting skill. Most of TCMA "knowledge" is nonsense, it's fantasy. Real knowledge only comes from doing it, from fighting. So who are the great fighters that have respect for Garrett?

As far as what I believe he can or cannot do, I don't know, I've never seen the man operate. But, I know people who have, people whom I trust, and they say he has real skill.

Skill at what? You can only tell someone's fighting skill by seeing them fight, particularly with competent fighters. Not only that, but you can only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Since he's never fought in his life, let alone with competent fighters, how can anyone says he has skill?

Now I'm sure you'll try and say something snappy about me "trusting the wrong people" or something juvenile like that, but these are all guys whom I have seen beat alot of @$$ with little effort and they can't touch Sifu Gee.

They aren't trying to really "touch him." They're not fighting. Put Garrett in against a low level MT fighter and Garrett would be out in seconds. And that's not meant as an insult -- it's just that you can't develop the skill to deal with competent fighters, like a MT fighter, by not fighting. You only will develop the skill to beat the MT fighter by getting in and doing it, and doing loads of it.

Now, call it HFY, call it TWC, call it yourmomisafat*****, I don't care. What it boils down to is that he is the Grandmanster of an entire system of MA which, if you did any research at all instead of wasting everybody's time on this forum, you would find out HFY can directly trace its roots to the Boxer rebellion and beyond.

I've done the research. You're just listenting to the marketing, the story they're presenting as history. But that isn't true. As I said, show me ONE HFY practitioner that existed prior to Garrett. ONE. You can't. I could take any WCK practitioner on this forum at random other than a HFY person, and reliably trace theri lineage back to the Red Boats, showing real people (with proof they existed) that we could show really trained WCK. You can't do that with Garrett. Why? Because there was no HFY prior to GG. It didn't exist. He made it up.

The symbology present throughout the system shows, without a doubt, it was not "made up" by any one man. That is a fact, and is indisputable so don't even try without actually doing the research and citing me your sources (come on, your a lawyer right?). Hopefully JP can teach you a thing or two (I don't mean through violence either) about the system and it's roots. I think if you would actually drop your unending criticism of things you don't really know anything about, you may actually learn something through all this. Even if you think the MAs of HFY are crap, the history of Chinese culture and how it plays into the system will probably humble you.

Are you suggesting that Garrett is simply too stupid to add symbology to his system? That it would need to be done by committee?

Or you could just continue to be a douche and stay stuck within your own feeble boundaries. I suppose it's no loss/gain to me either way. I know this though, you sound a LOT like the fox in the "sour grapes" story. You can't hope to be able to understand or grasp something, so you might as well bash it and ruin it for everyone else. Nice. Let me know how that works out for ya little guy. You must be a real hit at parties eh?

"Sour grapes"? "Ruin it for everyone else"? You're funny.

All you need to do is look at what you (or HFY) offer as evidence, as proof of your claims. You talk about history but can't offer any evidence HFY existed prior to GG. You can't bring forward a single HFY practitioner priorto GG. You offer stories. But no evidence.

You talk about GG's "reputation", how some unnamed people think he's got skil, but you can't provide any evidence of him actually using that alleged skill or doing the things any person needs to do to develop that skill.

You believe despite the complete lack of solid, genuine evidence. Well, I don't. For me, the lack of that evidence IS evidence. That's not "sour grapes", that's not "spoiling it for everyone" (like it's some party), that's called being rational. It's called being a critical thinker. Maybe you should try it.

[CFT]

All you need to do is look at what you (or HFY) offer as evidence, as proof of your claims. You talk about history but can't offer any evidence HFY existed prior to GG. You can't bring forward a single HFY practitioner prior to GG. You offer stories. But no evidence.

Never mind "prior to", I'd have expected some of his contemporaries (sihing/dai) to have surfaced by now. The Qing dynasty is long dead and the Shaolin Temple is promoted by the Communist government. Surely nothing to be afraid of now?

[Wayfaring]

So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

So I'll answer my own question. In MMA environments the distance where short distance power is most effective is avoided. Fighters punch their way in then collapse quickly to greco wrestling range. Or stay at a longer range. Takedowns go under a punch usually by changing levels to initiate. In short distance range fighters cover up with what in Muy Thai looks a little bit like the jong sau in that it is a structured cover up that can absorb a punch. They stay covered up for as little time as possible, then either clinch or punch their way out.

In WC, if there is no bridge, strike. No difference there. The bridge itself however keeps the fight at short distance striking range. Then skills with the bridge allow a WC fighter to manipulate or sink the bridge, change facing, and remain in short distance striking range to cause the most damage.

[Ned]

They aren't trying to really "touch him." They're not fighting.

I've done the research.

T, from the sounds of your research, its full of Bull. first off you talk about real fighting all the time but its only sparring with pads and limits. Before doing any research try researching real fighting first like maybe going up againist anyone you wrongly convicted with your "research" jargon. Do it without the pad and any limits, rules, legal consequences, ect. its called critical analysis.

You believe despite the complete lack of solid, genuine evidence. Well, I don't. .... that's called being rational. It's called being a critical thinker. Maybe you should try it.

go talk to youself.

[Wayfaring]

They aren't trying to really "touch him." They're not fighting. Put Garrett in against a low level MT fighter and Garrett would be out in seconds.

From what I have personally seen I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this point. People have seen different things.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by Wayfaring
So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

So I'll answer my own question. In MMA environments the distance where short distance power is most effective is avoided. Fighters punch their way in then collapse quickly to greco wrestling range. Or stay at a longer range. Takedowns go under a punch usually by changing levels to initiate. In short distance range fighters cover up with what in Muay Thai looks a little bit like the jong sau in that it is a structured cover up that can absorb a punch. They stay covered up for as little time as possible, then either clinch or punch their way out.

In WC, if there is no bridge, strike. No difference there. The bridge itself however keeps the fight at short distance striking range. Then skills with the bridge allow a WC fighter to manipulate or sink the bridge, change facing, and remain in short distance striking range to cause the most damage.

***ACTUALLY, I did respond yesterday, but my computer locked up as I was trying to hit the "Submit reply" - and then the doorbell rang and I had to take care of something.

My take is similar to your take. The bridge in wing chun is meant to keep the fight in short range striking distance - whereas in mma, (and of course this usually means Muay Thai coverup or knee/elbow clinch work...or perhaps a wrestling/grappling clinch to shoot or takedown)...

but not the short range striking that wing chun prefers. (The overlapping styles exception to this being elbow and knee strikes from semi-clinch).

And I believe that wing chun can bring a lot to the table in this regard as far as nhb, mma is concerned.

But the truth is, from my point of view, though I try to fight my way (with long range punching, kicking, footwork) to the close quarter wing chun range (quite often using a bridge) in order to strike from there...

I'm not married to the idea that this where I have to be at all costs - and this is what I have to do at all costs.

In other words, the wing chun bridge is meant to get you in position to STRIKE, and possibly followed by a sweep takedown. It's NOT meant to go to full clinch, or to set up a takedown or shot from full clinch.

So therefore the wing chun "bridge" idea is limited in it's scope - too limited.

Fighting requires being ready and able to do all of the above. You can't always control the distance to your preferred range - and then stay exactly there and finish the fight. Reality doesn't work that way.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In MMA environments the distance where short distance power is most effective is avoided. Fighters punch their way in then collapse quickly to greco wrestling range. Or stay at a longer range.

Where grappling is an option, short range striking will "degrade" into clicnh work and inevitably, grappling.
Just the way things work.
Strikers prefer to stay at a "longer range" because they avoid the grappling/clinch situation and their strikes carry momentum as well, not just "short impact power".
Striking at short range isn't avoid in MMA, the WELL TRAINED grappling element takes lots of the "sting" out of it and unless someone has trained that short power VS the grappling techniques they will encounter, typically, the short power won't be as effective as needed.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well put, sanjuro...but what I see as potential in this regard is someone trained in wing chun and in grappling/wrestling being able to utilize short range striking with effect...

and thereby helping to change the whole dynamic of the fight.

In other words, another big, effective tool to put into the toolbox - and one (wing chun short range striking/bridging) that people aren't expecting to have to deal with.

[duende]

But bear with me. A bridge is grappling in a very broad sense. It represents restricted movement. Books like Renzo Gracie's talking about fight ranges speak of free movement, restricted movement, and ground. Now you can say that the object of chi sau is to strike your opponent. But if you develop skill in control of the bridge, and what presents itself is a takedown, will you take it or not? The kicks in wing chun are kind of designed to remove the supporting balance and take someone to the ground.

So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

Thanks Dave,

This was my point all along. We train Chi Sao to control the bridge at various timeframes. Chi Sao for is not simply a method to set up a strike. If you are in striking range however, and it is the time to hit... then great. But if not, then you'll most likely get hit yourself. Chi Sao can help you keep an opponent from achieving "grip control" which can be very helpful in preventing yourself from being taken down.

Interesting enough, I am in Tucson this week visiting my folks. My cousin happens to be a coach here for a high school football team. Well, he had me come down and teach his star receiver some simple Kiu Sau techniques to use on the scrimage line. The kid is smaller than most defensive backs and he was getting held up too much at the line, by the "bump and run". Thats a defensive line technique where they push up against your center and try and uplift you. Kind of like our snow plowing. Anyways, the counter technique for this is called "The Swim", and it wasn't working out for the kid.

Anyways, by using some of the controlled bridging I showed him, the kid was able to keep some hands off of him at practice. We'll see how it works out in the future, but it was definitley a fun experience.


Anerlich,

Our terminology like Contact/Control is just that... terminology. I don't see, where I hyped it up or made it sound like some revolutionary ground-breaking concept. We simply have terms for certain applications of physical skill. End of Story.


Terence,

I seriously doubt you would act like such a Jack-A$$ in real life.

Robert came by our school in 1998 or so. It was at that time, he told us that our Tan Sau was too high and would block our vision etc. Fine, that was his opinion at the time, he wasn't aware of our application, covering of gate, or occupation of space. However oddly enough, our punches use the exact same reference points, and he most definitely witnessed them too.

So another words, if you want to play chicken and egg, we most certainly can. But it is a waste of bandwidth and everyone's time here, not to mention our own.

As for your opinion on HFY. Somehow, somewhere you got emotionally attached to this hatred of yours. It's too bad really. I've had nice talks recently with both Robert and Alan from the CSL system.

We have all decided to move on and share our personal learning experiences here on forums like this.

Obviously, you are your own person etc... and that's good too.

But if you look at your posts. In all truth... the person you are arguing the most with is YOURSELF.



Take care everyone. My apologies for contributing to the negative energy here.

Best,

Alex

[t_niehoff]

T, from the sounds of your research, its full of Bull. first off you talk about real fighting all the time but its only sparring with pads and limits. Before doing any research try researching real fighting first like maybe going up againist anyone you wrongly convicted with your "research" jargon. Do it without the pad and any limits, rules, legal consequences, ect. its called critical analysis.

My research isn't "full of bull" -- it's the HFY story that is nothing but bullsh1t. But it is a very simple thing to prove me wrong: just provide independently verifiable evidence of Garrett's WCK lineage. If you do that, I'll admit I'm wrong. I have absolutely no problem changing my mind if someone provides me with genuine evidence. And it's easy enough to prove lineage if you have a lineage (since every nonHFY person in WCK can do that). But HFY marketing tries to focus our attention of everything BUT this simple fact. And there is a very good reason for that.

Another thing -- there are certain dead giveaways that tell me people aren't fighting and they know hardly anything about fighting. Talking about "real fighting" is one of those giveaways. It is a dead giveaway that the person speaking is a fantasy-based martial artist.

go talk to youself.

Oh, its too much fun to talk to guys like you.