ideas on integration?

[sihing]

How does one know what is NOT needed?
Seriously, you say you don't need hooks ( for example), how do you know this?
Hooks are one of the most effective hand strikes in ANY MA, they generate a tremendous amount impact force, their circular nature allows them to go around a guard, they cause more KO's in MA than probably any other hand strike ( exception may be the overhand right), they strike off a person's natural blind spot and they naturally hit the outside anatomical week points of the body and head with out much adjustment needed.
How can one say that their system is complete and doesn't need hooks (for example) ?

I think if someone is looking to a Martial Art as a way to "change" the way they fight or defend themselves, they become attached to what it is teaching them. If the system says we use straight line attacks becasue it is the fastest way from point A to B, then they will be blinded by that prinicple and will not allow themselves to see outside of that way of thinking. This type of Martial Arts learning is not natural, but mechanical, in application and thinking, and is why most Martial Artist never can use what they are learning, they are trapped by their identification with their school, style, sifu/coach and try to display their style when they spar or fight.

The other way would be to add to what you already have as a fighter, and your natural ability to defend yourself. Some people are already further down the road than others, so it is safe to say that not everyone is starting at the same level. Now, when the training begins, one is taught that they are refining what they already have, making their tools sharper, more precise, more powerful, just plain old better. After learning and training, the person trained this way does not object to using round strikes, nor straight strikes or anything inbetween, as it is not about the training nor method learned, but the results. In this case, the attachement to the training method is not present, and one is more open minded, and free in their movement/application/thinking to do what is right for them when it is needed.

James

[Pacman]

How does one know what is NOT needed?
Seriously, you say you don't need hooks ( for example), how do you know this?
Hooks are one of the most effective hand strikes in ANY MA, they generate a tremendous amount impact force, their circular nature allows them to go around a guard, they cause more KO's in MA than probably any other hand strike ( exception may be the overhand right), they strike off a person's natural blind spot and they naturally hit the outside anatomical week points of the body and head with out much adjustment needed.
How can one say that their system is complete and doesn't need hooks (for example) ?

im just trying to clarify his statements....

[sanjuro_ronin]

the point is not whether or not you should be doing this. You guys will argue this point till you're blue in the face. The point was, for those of you who DO, how have you accomplished this?

save your bickering for another thread.
(boy, I should be a moderator!)

Bah, someone's got their panties in a bunch, wear silk next time.

[monji112000]

This goes out to those that believe cross training, or integrating "un-wing chun" moves is a good thing:

How do you integrate such punching, kicking, etc into ur wing chun class? After so many years, many of these students move the wing chun way (eg. Chain punching only, weight on back leg - this is in my class btw), so what have u guys done to introduce hooking punches, jabs, etc into the curriculum while keeping to wing chun theme in class?

Any problems u guys have run into? Any tips or advice?

Thanks!

use your head. Common sense can go a long way. If something seems to not work well, fix it. How else do you change?get better?

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Intergration is nothing new to WC or any MA. As Phil pointed out WC is sometimes considered to be a distillation of concepts from several other systems.

Traditional Martial Artists would always modify their approach based on needs and personal and physical differences. The difficult part is in not losing the original framework on which you have built your chosen system.

I have advocated this before but I would suggest reading the book; "Living the Martial Way" as I believe it covers the idea of integration nicely.

Essentially my view is that one should first have a strong foundation in their chosen art. Then one can explore other arts in preparation for situations, perhaps not included in their system. Once then needs to delve into the concepts which make those "techniques" workable and then work to integrate those outside concetps into their core system.

For example I also do Pekiti Tersia but my sticks have a WC flavor to them and do not look the same as some of those I train with, it is hard to describe online but even though the techniques may appear the same there is a subtle and oftimes noticable difference in energy and application.

One of the reasons some who attempt to mix different arts fail is that they keep each one seperate rather than try to integrate from one core system or approach. Thus when one moves from kicking to grappling or whatever there is a need to switch to the new range or technique, if there is a break then can you really say that the different arts or approaches are truly integrated?

Just my 2 cents for whatever it may be worth.

[Phil Redmond]

I think if someone is looking to a Martial Art as a way to "change" the way they fight or defend themselves, they become attached to what it is teaching them. If the system says we use straight line attacks becasue it is the fastest way from point A to B, then they will be blinded by that prinicple and will not allow themselves to see outside of that way of thinking. This type of Martial Arts learning is not natural, but mechanical, in application and thinking, and is why most Martial Artist never can use what they are learning, they are trapped by their identification with their school, style, sifu/coach and try to display their style when they spar or fight.

The other way would be to add to what you already have as a fighter, and your natural ability to defend yourself. Some people are already further down the road than others, so it is safe to say that not everyone is starting at the same level. Now, when the training begins, one is taught that they are refining what they already have, making their tools sharper, more precise, more powerful, just plain old better. After learning and training, the person trained this way does not object to using round strikes, nor straight strikes or anything inbetween, as it is not about the training nor method learned, but the results. In this case, the attachement to the training method is not present, and one is more open minded, and free in their movement/application/thinking to do what is right for them when it is needed.

James

Very good post.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . Essentially my view is that one should first have a strong foundation in their chosen art. Then one can explore other arts in preparation for situations, perhaps not included in their system. Once then needs to delve into the concepts which make those "techniques" workable and then work to integrate those outside concetps into their core system. . . . . .

Exactly. I consider myself a martial artist who "specializes" in WC but I'm open to anything that works regardless of where it comes from. Fighting has changed since the origins of WC. A martial art needs to evolve with those changes or it will cease to be effective.

[punchdrunk]

there is no easy answer to this question... really it is all in the teacher's and student's homework. Say for example you are impressed with a boxer's hook punch, you will have to experiment with it and do your own research and training to make it work for yourself and in the process thereof discover a bit of how to teach it to others. It's good to keep an open mind and eye, no system is complete.

[couch]

One of the reasons some who attempt to mix different arts fail is that they keep each one seperate rather than try to integrate from one core system or approach.

I agree. I see my world through WC goggles. When I'm taught in BJJ to keep my elbows pressed down on a guy's hips when passing an open guard, I don't keep it separate. I happily say out loud: Hey, elbows down just like my Wing Chun!

I like this video along the same lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdQlQ2w-McQ

[grasshopper 2.0]

Lol - well at least one of u noticed my attempt at a disclaimer to minimize the bickering

The question comes down to those that feel that a hooking punch is useful or that a roundhouse kick is useful, etc. How have u had to integrate that to ur students curriculum (if at all)!?

Or do u feel its ok for u to do it only in ur self-discovery, but teaching it in wing chun class is a different beast altogether?

I would like students to get some exposure to this stuff, importantly so, to not think that wc has to be straight line attacks (for example) ONLY, but I don't want to compromise nor undermine the wc that they've learned...

the point is not whether or not you should be doing this. You guys will argue this point till you're blue in the face. The point was, for those of you who DO, how have you accomplished this?

save your bickering for another thread.
(boy, I should be a moderator!)

[couch]

Lol - well at least one of u noticed my attempt at a disclaimer to minimize the bickering

The question comes down to those that feel that a hooking punch is useful or that a roundhouse kick is useful, etc. How have u had to integrate that to ur students curriculum (if at all)!?

Or do u feel its ok for u to do it only in ur self-discovery, but teaching it in wing chun class is a different beast altogether?

I would like students to get some exposure to this stuff, importantly so, to not think that wc has to be straight line attacks (for example) ONLY, but I don't want to compromise nor undermine the wc that they've learned...

I show what I know: WC. Anything other than that is left up to the training partners. I experiment on my own by myself or on the fly in a sparring session. I see learning a TMA differently, though. I've been trying to nail down exactly what WC is and right now, I figure, WC is just another way to teach someone to hit with their whole body behind it.

So if it could be just that simple, then a student is free to do whatever with whatever they have. After someone has trained in WC for 2-3 years and had a chance to spar, etc - I think they should get the heck out and get some other exposure.

[Edmund]

The question comes down to those that feel that a hooking punch is useful or that a roundhouse kick is useful, etc. How have u had to integrate that to ur students curriculum (if at all)!?

Or do u feel its ok for u to do it only in ur self-discovery, but teaching it in wing chun class is a different beast altogether?

I would like students to get some exposure to this stuff, importantly so, to not think that wc has to be straight line attacks (for example) ONLY, but I don't want to compromise nor undermine the wc that they've learned...

It has to be integrated from day one basically.

Not in the sense that you teach them every different thing within the first day.
But they should understand that each thing they learn will give them a better perspective and foundation to learn the next new thing. So while they may not throw roundhouse kicks the first lesson, they understand that it is coming up in future lessons.

WC is taught in progression. If you want to integrate something new, you have to place it somewhere into that progression based on how complicated it is and how important. Something like a hook is day one. Something like a hip throw, day ten.

[Lee Chiang Po]

You are going to find some of WC in just about every style or system of fighting, but it is only because it is something that makes good sense. I think WC is complete. It covers all bases. I don't know about other lineages, but mine is complete. I also have a black belt in Jap jujitsu, and it also shares some of the raw basics of WC, but greatly differs in that it depends on circular movements as well.
I have used my Skills in making my living over a period of at least 30 years. In that time I have had a huge number of physical altercations. I can honestly say that most other forms of fighting are fairly easy to manage, and I think I would find another WC trained individual more to my dislike. I know WC has been considered a close fighting system, but it is not any different in that respect to most others. If you are close enough to hit me, I am close enough to hit you too. The difference is that I can still fight most men when they are too close to use their fists on me effectively. I think watching MMA fighting on TV has clouded many peoples minds. The elbow is a very close range weapon. It is only about a foot long on most men, and in a toe to toe fight it is a rediculously short weapon. Hooks are C shaped, and it is shorter than a straight arm. The only real hook that exists in WC is the uppercut. If you look at it closely, you will see that it is the only hook punch that can meet alignment with the root. Boxers are only effecient with that punch because they are fighting another person using the same methods. And they do not use the feet. A WC man can move away and completely avoid the hook punch, which is not really all that difficult to stop, and can throw really hard kicks into the lower structure of the boxer. And high kicks, they are dangerous to you more so than to the opponent. You might get away with them in the ring, and you might even get away with it in a street fight, but eventually you will learn why they are not a good idea. When you miss, which is going to be most of the time, you are left on one foot or trying to recover from the miss, which leaves you vulnerable for a couple of seconds. That is an eternity when fighting a really skilled fighter.
I can use a WC entry technique to lead into a jujitsu take down or submission hold. I can apply most of these holds standing on my feet. However, I would never try to mix them as you all suggest. By intergrating jujitsu into WC I would not make it more efficient at all. I can use them in conjunction, but they will not mix as such. Incorperating high kicks, round house kicks, and hooks and spinning kicks and punches is just not going to make the system more efficent.

[Lindley]

The problem with most is that they compartmentalize martial arts systems and styles. Ving Tsun is a system, and as such, it provides the foundation of what you want to do. When some think of a complete system, they are expecting the system to have a technique as an answer for every situation. Ving Tsun does and its technique is called "Centerline". No, my friend, not the simplistic idea of an imaginary line down your body. And not just that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The Centerline is well beyond this in terms of using your body and techniques to collect information off the centerline. This is truly an advanced idea that is not apparent to most beginners and intermediates. As was mentioned someone was able to use their Ving Tsun knowledge to penetrate their opponent and then take him down with a Ju jitsu technique. Wonderful! But this stems from not thinking of these two as separate but understanding that the jujitsu technique is just that - another technique. Our study of Kung fu should be in the successful application of technique. Anyone who believes Ving Tsun only demonstrated by the three seeds - tan, bong, and fuk saos, is at an elementary level.
Cross training is fine if you have time, money, and put in the effort. However, it should not be viewed as merely learning the techniques of another system. The path to learning may have the same end point, but different methods of achieving the same goal. To most this may be confusing, which is why it is my belief that one should master something first so that they can observe other styles techniques and easily figure out how to apply them. If you think because you learn from a Ving tsun teacher, a Tae Kwon Do teacher, and a BJJ teacher that you will be "covered", you could be wasting your money as well as your time.
Wong Shong Leung had a fight one day. He landed a kick to his opponent and ended the fight. Someone with him said he did not use Ving tsun. He responded that he did, but used the idea of using the closest weapon.
The forms, the chi sao, the dummy and the weapons are all components of a system that begs you to extract their knowledge for more uses than is apparent.

Good luck with your Kung fu!!!

[chusauli]

Having studied many martial arts for fun and recreation, I can say that WCK's core theme of maintaining and controlling the center is pretty much present in Shaolin, Lama, Tai Ji, Xing Yi, Ba Gua, and Shuai Jiao. The other arts may have different tools, but their actual combat use is so in accord to WCK's principles. As one gets more advanced in other arts, advanced methods are more economical and practical, and even more like WCK.

The Opera founders had a plethora of systems at their disposal. They didn't just design an art for looks, but function. All function is more or less based on good mechanics, timing, positioning, so in the end, its all going to look somewhat similar...