WCK Strategies

[Wayfaring]

I don't understand the tendency to try to make WCK anything and everything.

That of course is the other extreme and really downplays the realistic tendency in WCK that is fairly evident by the number of "that's not WCK" comments in response to sparring video.

So, go put a spinning backfist in boxing, a functional martial art. You will be told that isn't boxing. That's not to say that it won't work -- but it isn't a boxing tool (historically) and it doesn't use boxing's delivery system (body mechanics).

No but it's in MT and used infrequently there.

However, that's not to say that functional arts don't have room for GROWTH -- BJJ is a great example of an art that does. So does boxing. But the growth in those arts MAINTAIN that art's delivery system (mechanics) and method.

I don't know about that. There's plenty of traditional BJJ schools that wouldn't know the mechanics of leglocks if it jumped up and bit them in the @$$ - the ones that do many have crosstrained.

The nature of GROWTH is to enhance and expand the core delivery system (mechanics) and methods. The opposite of that is to place the existing system on a pedestal never to be deviated from. That is called STAGNATION. At least in the Western mindset - the Eastern has a lot of attachment to the ancestors that causes that viewpoint to be completely foreign.

Really? You think it a poor idea to take the things in your art and focus on making them work?

No I think it is a poor idea to take the things in your art that don't work and try to force-feed them into areas they don't belong in an effort to call your art a "complete" art. Like anti-grappling in WCK for example.

[m1k3]

So, go put a spinning backfist in boxing, a functional martial art. You will be told that isn't boxing. That's not to say that it won't work -- but it isn't a boxing tool (historically) and it doesn't use boxing's delivery system (body mechanics).

Wrong. Boxing doesn't use a spinning backfist because it is outside the rules. The same with any combat sport, the rules define what can and can't be used. When the boxing rules changed the techniques changed to take advantage of those rules.

<delete>So unless you are saying that WC as an art has been defined and will never change because it reflects a particular style at a particular point in time then I don't believe your argument holds water.</delete>

This doesn't have anything to do with my initial argument but does reflect my thoughts on WC and some of the Japanese traditional systems that can trace their lineage back to a particular family at a particular point in time and the style will never change. But these people realize that primary focus of their art is the maintenance of the art from a historical perspective. I don't believe WC falls into that category because of all the lineages grand masters and back biting over who has the real WC

[Wayfaring]

Boxlines are just people's ways of organizing to teach a syllabus.

For fighting, functionality rules.

IMO this is very mixed up in the average WCK student's head due to overemphasis on the syllabus and lack of emphasis on any out of the box functionality.

[tigershorty]

but wayfaring..how many people are actually fighting with their wing chun? what do most students hope to really get out of their classes? let's be honest. people are confusing learning an art/hobby and calling it fighting..but never actually wanting to fight. this it the ultimate hang up in TMA in america.

its pretty easy to stay out of a fight even for self defense reasons if you're aware.

[YungChun]

let's be honest. people are confusing learning an art/hobby and calling it fighting..but never actually wanting to fight. this it the ultimate hang up in TMA in america.

I don't agree that this is the case for "TMAs".. It is the case for certain TMAs like VT for example because VT's curriculum is outside the realm of fighting where fighting means fighting non VT... IMO this is especially problematic for VT because it is so specialized.. VT students who want to fight must go fight non VT people in order to develop..

What some VT people are missing is that the VT curriculum was intended to train the method so you can go and then develop your fighting outside the core/basic training.. Many people just keep repeating/doing the basic training, like doing high school over and over again, never heading off to college..

[t_niehoff]

Wrong. Boxing doesn't use a spinning backfist because it is outside the rules.

Yes, it is outside the rules. But why? Boxing has grown a great deal in the past 100 years.

There is a reason that they hit only with the front of the fist (no backfists or hammer fists). The "rules" preserve the mechanics and method.

The same with any combat sport, the rules define what can and can't be used. When the boxing rules changed the techniques changed to take advantage of those rules.

I agree. But the rules aren't arbitrary -- there is a reason for the rules. Why does boxing allow certain sorts of punches and not others? Because the punches they do allow use a certain delivery system (mechanics).

It's the same for judo. And BJJ.

<delete>So unless you are saying that WC as an art has been defined and will never change because it reflects a particular style at a particular point in time then I don't believe your argument holds water.</delete>

Not a particular style, but a certain delivery system and method. That is the base, the foundation of the art. You can call it the root. From that root, you can have various limbs, leaves, etc. but they all grow out of that root.

Same with boxing -- there is a certain, specific delivery system, its root. And things can and have grown from that root.

This doesn't have anything to do with my initial argument but does reflect my thoughts on WC and some of the Japanese traditional systems that can trace their lineage back to a particular family at a particular point in time and the style will never change. But these people realize that primary focus of their art is the maintenance of the art from a historical perspective. I don't believe WC falls into that category because of all the lineages grand masters and back biting over who has the real WC

Yes, I agree that you can preserve something for historical purpose. But what I am talking about is that there is a functional base or delivery system that is at the root of WCK -- and without that base or delivery system, you no longer have WCK.

[t_niehoff]

That of course is the other extreme and really downplays the realistic tendency in WCK that is fairly evident by the number of "that's not WCK" comments in response to sparring video.

The simplest answer is, I think, are you using the WCK tools? If so, then you are using WCK. If you are using boxing's tools, then you are boxing. If you are using MT's tools, then you are using MT.

As you pointed out, it is not uncommon for arts to incorporate innovations, including things from other arts. But when you do that, I think the issue is whether or not that innovation maintains the core method/approach or not.

The nature of GROWTH is to enhance and expand the core delivery system (mechanics) and methods. The opposite of that is to place the existing system on a pedestal never to be deviated from. That is called STAGNATION. At least in the Western mindset - the Eastern has a lot of attachment to the ancestors that causes that viewpoint to be completely foreign.

Here is what I am talking about. Boxing uses a certain mechanics/delivery system. Its tools work within that delivery system. You can add things to that delivery system that are consistent with it. But, if you try adding things to your boxing that are inconsistent with a boxing delivery system -- that use mechanics that are contrary to boxing mechanics -- then you don't get growth, you get failure. And that's because then you have two competing ways of trying to use your body.

This has nothing to do with putting boxing on a pedestal -- it is simply looking at it from a functional perspective.

No I think it is a poor idea to take the things in your art that don't work and try to force-feed them into areas they don't belong in an effort to call your art a "complete" art. Like anti-grappling in WCK for example.

I agree with that 100%. But some would call your view "drawing imaginary box lines around the art." And that's my point -- WCK IS a certain thing, it is not whatever the hell we want it to be.

[chusauli]

IMO this is very mixed up in the average WCK student's head due to overemphasis on the syllabus and lack of emphasis on any out of the box functionality.

This is unrealistic expectation based on the student's ignorance, or instructor's ignorance.

Look at Hawkins' thinking way back in HK (excerpted from http://www.chusaulei.com/martial/art...brucelee3.html) :

"To understand Bruce and his martial art, you have to look at his mother art, wing chun. Wing chun in the 1950s was a popular fighting system because of its reputation in challenge fights with other gung-fu Systems. Wing chun was noted for its simple, direct, economical movement and non-classical style.

Many joined and wanted to learn how to fight. Because of the reputation of wing chun, Bruce and I joined. The thing about wing chun is once you start the first form, you feel frustrated. We questioned, "Why do we have to learn this? How can you fight like this?" Everyone wanted to learn the siu nim tao quickly, so they could move onto the sticking hands exercise. The dan chi sao (single sticking hand) exercise was no fun, so the younger students wanted to get through that even quicker. When you finally learned the double sticking hands exercise, we felt excited and thought, "I can fight now! I know wing chun now!" We liked to copy the seniors. If you could land a punch on your opponent, you felt very excited. "I can beat him now," was our first thought. So everyone wanted to beat his partner first so he could be the top dog. "

Probably Yip Man was saying to himself, "What a bunch of egotisical a$$holes!" LOL!

[Wayfaring]

but wayfaring..how many people are actually fighting with their wing chun?

Few.

what do most students hope to really get out of their classes? let's be honest.

Well, what are they being sold? Self defense, confidence to handle fight type scenarios, fitness, peace, etc. That probably is what they hope to get out of it, right? To be like Bruce Lee? That's what is marketed.

people are confusing learning an art/hobby and calling it fighting..but never actually wanting to fight. this it the ultimate hang up in TMA in america.

Well most fighters are hobbyists. The confusion lies between what is sold and what actually happens. And both parties to the transaction are probably partially responsible for the delusion. No they won't be like Bruce Lee. And no, they mostly will not be able to handle self defense scenarios with people bigger, stronger or more athletic than they are. But thinking they can can be dangerous. Also, the art/hobby training of slow motion compliant drills, little cardio, and lots of concepts also probably shortchanges people on the fitness side of things.

its pretty easy to stay out of a fight even for self defense reasons if you're aware.

That depends on where you live, work, play. If you take a paycheck as a doorman at a club, probably not. Or if you live in a bad section, or choose to play in rougher areas. Also in self defense situations where you are with a spouse/girlfriend and children. But in urban America yes. Actually the safest place in America to fight is in a school that trains fighters.

[YungChun]

Too much generalization..IMO..

Not all schools are equal.. Some are technically better, some are technically poor, some spar harder some don't spar, some will spar outside their own school, style, etc..

Not all students are the same, some are gifted, some are of low aptitude for whatever reason, some will want to take their fighting further etc..

VT is not one thing to all people and not all people have the same ability or desire..

IMO a good classical program should be producing people with some level of skill above "scrub"..

A good TMA program in general should be producing some reasonable level of skill above "scrub".. Some TMArtists are actually good fighters...

I also don't think it's fair to refer to all/most TMA as non fighting scrubs because there are lots of folks in TMArts that do spar hard and spar as a core part of training...

[Wayfaring]

The simplest answer is, I think, are you using the WCK tools? If so, then you are using WCK. If you are using boxing's tools, then you are boxing. If you are using MT's tools, then you are using MT.

Over-simplification. These criticisms are leveled at Alan Orr and his fighters that they don't use WCK tools. Yet he propounds to teach WCK alone. The next argument are what are tools? The most obvious outer forms? Tan, bong, fuk? Or more? If you say the strategies and approaches, we're getting more ethereal here.

As you pointed out, it is not uncommon for arts to incorporate innovations, including things from other arts. But when you do that, I think the issue is whether or not that innovation maintains the core method/approach or not.

And stupidity connected to that issue is pretty standard. i.e. why BJJ schools outlaw leg locks at lower levels. There really are no different core fundamentals there. But somebody made a judgement call. Is is "core" or not? Is it "pure water" or not? Is it "authentic" or not? And those judgement calls almost invariably contribute to the watering down of the effectiveness of the art.

Here is what I am talking about. Boxing uses a certain mechanics/delivery system. Its tools work within that delivery system. You can add things to that delivery system that are consistent with it. But, if you try adding things to your boxing that are inconsistent with a boxing delivery system -- that use mechanics that are contrary to boxing mechanics -- then you don't get growth, you get failure. And that's because then you have two competing ways of trying to use your body.

The minute your measurement turns from functional effectiveness to "internal consistency" now you're doing choreography, not a functional fighting art. And you are making a subjective judgement that may or may not be valid.

This has nothing to do with putting boxing on a pedestal -- it is simply looking at it from a functional perspective.

Sure it does. A subjective judgement on consistency is a value judgement. As such that limits it's evaluation on a functional or objective basis alone.

I agree with that 100%. But some would call your view "drawing imaginary box lines around the art." And that's my point -- WCK IS a certain thing, it is not whatever the hell we want it to be.

Hey if someone has skill, I'm all for learning the skill exactly as a change could dilute the effectiveness of the skill.

However, I think you're going in the wrong direction with all of the "core curriculum" across lineages mantra you've latched on to this round. If everyone is doing the same thing, then many times that's the indication they're wrong. Sure there are real core fundamentals, like sticking, centerline, horse, don't chase hands. But beyond that it falls apart.

It's like my footlock example. A training partner of mine just won his GQ division
with 4 straight footlocks and a final. That's ridiculous. He can't come close to doing that at home.

[chusauli]

Long ago, I asked why we had to keep the elbows in so tightly and drop the elbows as we did.

An answer that one of my seniors said was, "in combat, people are stressed and have a tendency to flare out their elbows where they lose cover. Because in regular training we emphasize elbow placement so tightly, in fighting situations, we will not overly open up. This is also why in fighting WCK doesn't look like WCK."

As I reflect now, there is truth to that statement.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chusauli
"JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not."

I do not understand WCK's tendency towards drawing imaginary box lines around the art.

Functional arts don't do that. BJJ? H3ll no. Someone brings in a sambo footlock - "yes my fren. zhoo zhitsoo has had de footlock since de beginning - Helio taught dat me in 1976 fren. dat eddie bravo guy - he be teachin de techniques I do since purple belt - he just smoka de pot and namea dem de crazy names".

Which is complete BS, but illustrates the mindset.

WCK's mindset?

You just got 2nd place in a street fight, and the guy that beat you down leans over and says "Very nice. You stayed true to your WCK".

I mean OMG - he DARED to break out of the horse and let the goat out from between his knees.

***THIS.

And to make matters worse, some of the same people who talk about wing chun purity are also adding things from other systems of fighting and call it wing chun. Like the "wing chun guillotine", for example. You know the one - where the entry into the guillotine comes out of the last section of biu jee ???!!!

It is all about functionality, Wayfaring. But wing chun politics often gets in the way of that.

[chusauli]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chusauli
JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not.

***THIS.

So according to your one word post and putting up Wayfaring's post, "Robins are birds, and all birds are robins"? (A Rene Ritchie quote)

Is that logical?

[LSWCTN1]

A little reply to some comments, and the title of the thread.

The Lee Shing system, as I know it, has lots of breaks and i guess chin-na in it. As i have learnt my families version of wing chun I have noticed that its all about not just a coverage of the elbow and knee (as imperial mentioned) but also a trapping of those points too. as the body is being uprooted and torqued away. this creates a move that sees your opponent eith allow the initial advances or have his knee blown out, for example. Torquing the opponent seems to be a major attribute in LS WC

I personally dont like the compliance holds that I have learnt. I still use them, but not as compliance holds. If it became real and I was to use them it would be in the good ol' Lancashire tradition of tearing it outta place rather than holding them there to give up. thats just me.

I also think that when wing chun was first openly taught in the west in 1971 it attracted the ruffians of the day. One of CTS's former students made a great point that 'Ging in gung fu and gung fu is ging' i read recently. this is what i have tried to say for years, but put infinitely more simply

Long ago, I asked why we had to keep the elbows in so tightly and drop the elbows as we did.

An answer that one of my seniors said was, "in combat, people are stressed and have a tendency to flare out their elbows where they lose cover. Because in regular training we emphasize elbow placement so tightly, in fighting situations, we will not overly open up. This is also why in fighting WCK doesn't look like WCK."

As I reflect now, there is truth to that statement.

I see that in not just the dropping of the elbows, but in everything we do. we train the smallest tightedt moves possible and when our gross motor movements kick in we are that littel bit tighter and better eqipped than we would have been