Why does MMA target WC?

[nasmedicine]

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive fighting

2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.

I agree and disagree with some thing that your saying (not that it matters). Regardless of whether one thinks MMA will eventually become a style/system onto itself or saying that mixing any martial art together is not MMA (As I mentioned in my earlier post the popular ****tail for competition is a BJJ,MT,Boxing and as you so nicely put the best set up optimized for competition has those three components) WC has a bad rep because like all things that have to many people or to many of anything the quality of the product diminishes. Without any standards as to what "real wing chun" (the reason of all the in fighting in the WC community) is suppose to be (IMO, this standard does exist anymore in one system but rather is spread through various lineages in pieces but that is another topic all together) there will always be the mocking of WC not only by MMA but by martial artists in general.

Also, if you are practicing, as you mentioned earlier "Aikido and Hungar" and cross grain them into a hybrid of both you are essentially mixing the two and practicing Mixed Martial Arts (again this is not the popular or maybe even optimal set up for MMA especially for competition or even in general).

I am a fan of MMA ( I watch it and enjoy the entertainment), I understand the limitations of WC (in particular the ground game) however I don't think it gives the right for people who are practicing multiple disciplines (usually very good at one and descent at the others, i.e. BJJ black belt, later adding MT and Boxing to become more well rounded but certainly not a master of those two) to target a single TCMA, I think it's childish.

[Monstrosity]

MMA incorporates elements of boxing and groundfighting. And it has changed alot over the last decade. It used to be that the best groundfighters won all the MMA matches but nowadays you have to be good at both striking and grappling to be successful. Anderson Silva is the greatest MMA fighter of all time and an extremely well rounded fighter who can do it all but most of his destruction comes from striking abilities.

And just because someone doesn't compete doesn't mean he isn't good. There is a guy in my hometown who is a gold medal winner in Europe in BJJ, he competes in that but doesn't fight MMA and thinks letting guys hit you in the face is nuts.

MMA guys always call out boxers to step into their turf in the cage, but I don't see any MMA guys stepping into a boxing ring challenging the top boxers. Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao would lose in the cage, but also the MMA guys in their weight would get annihilated in a boxing ring. It's the same argument.

The street is a different venue altogether. One may encounter multiple attackers, weapons, and such that one may not want to be on the ground with 1 person, but have options for escape, etc. Roberto Duran when he was a contender before he won the title was attacked by 5 men and knocked them all out (reading his biography now - this was documented and arrests made). You probably would not want to be trying to submit 1 guy in that situation.

As far as videotapping. I have only been in 3 street fights were I had to use martial arts. I won all 3 encounters but I didnt have a video camera set up ahead of time to tape it. How ridiculous is that? Most street encounters happen unexpectedly to say the least.

Not everyone who trains is a good fighter. There are men who are great instructors but terrible fighters. This goes for all arts. Fighting takes a certain mentality, not just skills. I personally like the skills of Martin Dragos but not every practioner could use it effectively, but those who had the right mental toughness could.

[Faruq]

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive fighting

2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

That's necessary for sport. I mean people aren't still signing the death releases before stepping on to the lei tai anymore, right? Or if they are, kill techniques are illegal in competition anyway.

[nasmedicine]

As far as videotapping. I have only been in 3 street fights were I had to use martial arts. I won all 3 encounters but I didnt have a video camera set up ahead of time to tape it. How ridiculous is that? Most street encounters happen unexpectedly to say the least.

I would like to add that video taping a street fight and then broadcasting it for others is self-incrimination and very dumb.

[anerlich]

That's necessary for sport.

No kidding.

[k gledhill]

I would like to add that video taping a street fight and then broadcasting it for others is self-incrimination and very dumb.

So my 'hat cam' idea is a no-go ?

[nasmedicine]

so my 'hat cam' idea is a no-go ? :d

lol .

[HumbleWCGuy]

One thing tat I should have added earlier is that WC claims to be scientific with its principles.
It's all good rule of thumb advice, but just because you can dress your explanation up as apparently scientific, WC isn't scientific. Perhaps more than other arts, WCers are able to talk a good game, and only a minority can deliver in a credible way.

FWIW, JKD guys are kind of the same way. I worked with some OJKD guys for a time. They were nauseating.

[Graham H]

WC isn't scientific. .

That's strange! Wong Shun Leung used scientific anyalysis in a lot of his writings and teachings and yet it's not really scientific???? Hey man? You must know something I don't!!

GH

[HumbleWCGuy]

That's strange! Wong Shun Leung used scientific anyalysis in a lot of his writings and teachings and yet it's not really scientific???? Hey man? You must know something I don't!!

GH

What was his sample size? Could you describe his research designs?
It's psuedoscientific. It's sounds like science if you don't know what science is. Here is an example of garden variety WC pseudoscience http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...ad.php?t=61409.

[Graham H]

What was his sample size?

Thats a bit personal aint it?

Could you describe his research designs?

WTF are you on about?

It's psuedoscientific.

No its not. Read his article "The Mystery of Wing Chun"

It's sounds like science if you don't know what science is.

Not sure about that but I don't know what your posts mean either!

Here is an example of garden variety WC pseudoscience http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...ad.php?t=61409.

"garden variety WC pseudoscience" ??????? Can I have some of that s**t you is smoking??? LOL

GH

[CFT]

Read his article "The Mystery of Wing Chun"

Is that online anywhere? Can't seem to find it via Google.

[Graham H]

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...ad.php?t=61397

[LoneTiger108]

It's all good rule of thumb advice, but just because you can dress your explanation up as apparently scientific, WC isn't scientific. .

I kind of agree with you on this one, as primarily what we are looking at is 'trigonometry' based because we are studying the effects of shapes like triangles, cirlces and squares.

I think the 'science mind' only entered our system from peole like WSL because that was his trade. Wasn't he a Medical Student when he first started learning from Ip Man??

[Graham H]

I think the 'science mind' only entered our system from peole like WSL because that was his trade. Wasn't he a Medical Student when he first started learning from Ip Man??

The best place for that thought to stay is in your mind with all the other nonsense Spencer!

GH